Cleon Teunissen

My name is Cleon Teunissen, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm particularly intrigued by the story of 'centrifugal force'.
I'm fascinated by how adamant people can be about the subject.

Mosquito ringtone Talk:Fictitious force

Hi Cleon, please don't delete discussion on article talk pages. You should refactor or archive (see Sabrina Martins Talk page).
Nextel ringtones Duk/Duk 10:14, 29 Jan 2005

:Hi Duk, I guess I assumed that since the history is preserved there is no such thing as really deleting discussion from talk pages. I wanted to avoid clutter, so I removed section, mostly things I had written. I followed the refactor link, but it didn't clarify all that much to me. I haven't seen the method to move to archive space yet. Abbey Diaz Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 11:08, 29 Jan 2005

::You are right, it is not obvious. Use the ''move'' button (to the right of ''edit this page'').

::To archive, ''move'' the talk page to ''talk:page_name/archive1'' (this moves the edit history too). A re-direct is created (from talk page to archive). You need to replaced the re-direct with a link to the archive, so that when people go to the talk page they aren't re-directed. Its a good thing to do after a re-write (and I know that was your intention for cleaning up). I went ahead and did it. Mosquito ringtone Duk/Duk 11:40, 29 Jan 2005

:::The purpose of my cleanup was to make the discussion accessable to others. I wanted to do some defragmentation. Much of my discussion with William M Connolley contained justification of my intentions on how to proceed, so after the rewrite the discussion was still relevant to the article. Sabrina Martins Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 21:25, 29 Jan 2005

:Indeed - please don't delete talk (you are right that it is there in history, but people shouldn't have to search through the history to find it). If you only want to archive part of the history, cutting and pasting would work too (cutting and pasting is usually deprecated: however, given that talk comments are mostly signed, author attribution is not such a great issue as it would be for cutting and pasting articles themselves). Nextel ringtones ALoan/ALoan Abbey Diaz User_talk:ALoan/(Talk) 11:22, 30 Jan 2005

SSR
The entry is supposed to be about Kuhn's work. To say "we know" such things, in a page about a book which is often used to dispute the ontological basis of science, is not only inappropriate because it misrepresents the work, but is decidedly a form of POV, in a sense. Aside from that, Kuhn would note that whether we "know" (if you would even accept that) that matter is made of "atoms," the meaning of "atoms" has changed radically many times since it postulation (first as small bits of point matter, then as masses of positive charges surrounded by rings of electrons, then as positive and neutral charges bound by strong nuclear forces surrounded by wave/particle electrons according to a distribution pattern, then as quarks in various configurations, then perhaps as strings bound into greater complexities, etc. etc. etc.). To use a scanning tunneling microscope as a way to "refute" that makes as much sense as using a Leyden jar to argue for the liquidity of electricity. Personally I would want to, when I got the time, go over Kuhn's work again and use ''only the examples with which he uses'' (which if I recall focus primarily on the Maxwell/Einstein transition, which he saw as an exemplar of his theory) because it is an entry ''about the book''. To weigh in one "who was right" (a way of approaching the issues Kuhn ''explicitly'' argues against) is not appropriate. Free ringtones Fastfission/Fastfission 01:21, 16 Feb 2005

:Majo Mills Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 12:12, 16 Feb 2005 It is quite possible that the Leyden jar is mentioned in SSR. At first the scientists saw bottles to contain something with the properties of a fluid, later, they saw condensators, very thematic. The example does not apply: scanning tunneling imagery shows that at some magnification level matter is seen to be discontinuous. Recognizing that there is at that size range a "building blocks" level does not require a commitment to any concepts of the nature of these building blocks, which is why I chose scanning tunneling microscopy.

:I feel that in writing a synopsis a balance needs to be struck. I have criticised the 'expert terms' section of the wikidedia Cingular Ringtones paradigm shift article severely for popperianizing Thomas Kuhn. I guess the writer of those passages wanted to make Kuhn more palatable to people unfamiliar with the work of Thomas Kuhn.
:In my synopsis I have done something similar. By stressing that with the benefit of hindsight we know the atomists were on the right track I want to give the reader some reassurance. I'm trying hard to ''sell'' Thomas Kuhn to a bigger audience. I want to catch and hold peoples attention.
:I feel your phrasing is hypercorrect, I feel you are trying to be more Catholic than the pope.

:In the synopsis I discuss two examples: chemistry in the time of Lavoisier and Dalton, and I discuss the Keplerian revolution. To my knowledge Thomas Kuhn has published three books (or three are better known than others). A book titled 'The Copernican revolution', SSR and a book on the history of evolving concepts in the early development of Quantum dynamics. I decided to discuss the Keplerian revolution in detail because it was pivotal in the evolution of Thomas Kuhn's thoughts, and it also allowed me to show how terribly bad popular accounts of the history of science often are. I feel as strongly as Thomas Kuhn that bad science history breeds bad science philosophy. for losers Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 12:12, 16 Feb 2005
The problem is never a question of palatability, but accuracy. What was Kuhn ''actually'' saying? That's what the articles should reflect. I am not trying to be "hypercorrect," I'm simply trying not to prejudge the reader. It does not help the reader to understand Kuhn if we use terminology that Kuhn would never use. Kuhn would never say, "We know the atomists were ''correct''" because his ''entire point'' was that we don't really know what ''correct'' will ever be. So clearly any explanation of what ''he said'' could never contain such a phrasing.
Let us make clear which entries we are talking about, when talking about examples. The only problem I have with using the Copernican revolution as an example for bathroom schedule paradigm shift is that he wrote it well before coming up with the idea of the paradigm shift; it is embryonic in many ways. If done carefully and illustratively, though, it could serve as a useful example to the reader, so I am fine with that. But the examples in the SSR entry should be taken from SSR, since it is an entry about that particular book.
My goal here is to make sure the reader understands Kuhn ''on his own terms'' and ''in his own language''. They can draw whatever conclusions they want from that (we could even include a Criticisms section which makes common objections clear). Pre-disposing them into a Whiggish mode of thought (this is "correct" this is "not correct") is the polar opposite of what Kuhn was saying should be done. It is important that we give the historical events in the terms and language Kuhn used them—while also presenting whether others criticized his historical facts, which some did—in order to explain Kuhn's philosophy of science (which is above all what the entries must be on, of course). vegas where Fastfission/Fastfission 13:43, 16 Feb 2005

:her treatment Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 16:19, 17 Feb 2005 Personally, I think the art of persuasion is important; the social dimension of conducting science. In my opinion, a synopsis should be sufficiently accurate to avoid that the reader who later actually reads SSR is not surprised. I take palatability quite serious.

:I'm not very demanding when it comes to calling something correct. The early greek philosophers concluded on the basis of the knowledge of their time that the earth had to be spherical in shape. I call that a correct assessment. What was discovered later does not refute that correctness, in my style of judgement. I suppose the way I use the word 'correct' is rather from an engineers point of view. My thinking leads to statements of the type: the concrete for the Pantheon in Rome was mixed correctly. I don't really see any other way of using the word 'correct' in a way that is meaningful.

:I was not aware that in my memory the two books; Copernican revolution' and 'SSR' had become merged. In my memory, SSR discusses the Copernican revolution too. I've had a quick glance in SSR and to my shock I discovered that my memories are not reliable; I shall have to reread the book.

:In the postscript added in the third edition of SSR, Thomas Kuhn stated explicitly that philosophical relativism was not his philosophy. I think that in SSR Thomas Kuhn took extreme care to preserve neutrality.:An example (introduction to the example: Kuhn explains that it is historically dubious to state that Ohm discovered Ohm's law, because Ohm's formulation of what later became known as Ohm's law was a step in a development towards a concept of electrostatic force that was not present before. What later became known as Ohm's law helped to create the paradigm in which Ohm's law is applicable.) When Kuhn describes an example like that he preserves a very fine balance. Kuhn does not prejudge the reader by stating: '''today''' we '''believe''' Ohm's law is valid; Kuhn avoids that sort of statement too!
:I think your alterations prejudge the reader towards relativism in a way that Thomas Kuhn avoided.

:In my synopsis I have chosen to simplify the exposition. I maintain a balance far less fine than what Thomas Kuhn maintained. Without that simplification, the synopsis would have been even longer. (It is already uncomfortably long.) writing cryptic Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 16:19, 17 Feb 2005
::I don't think that saying "we believe" in any way prejudges philosophical relavitism—it not only does not make a statement about whether or not science can reach truth (simply because one does not assert that the current state of knowledge ''is'' truth does not mean that ''there is no'' truth), but it does nothing more than assert that indeed, we believe X to be true (in this case, matter is composed of atoms). I think your association with "belief" with something less than true is a positivist approach that Kuhn would disdain quite heavily, whatever you take his position to be on "the ontological question." But this is not about philosophical questions, this is about how to write history of science, and this is what concerned Kuhn more than anything else. Historical method and historicity demands that one does not judge the past by the standards of the present, at the very least. In science, that amounts to not saying, "well, they were wrong, because now we know X is the way things really are," if one is a conscientious historian. Surely you can see the advantage of that? Here's the rub: Does changing a statement from reading "we now know atomism to be true" to "we now believe atomism to be true" significantly imply relativism? Not to me it doesn't; it simply gets you out of the bind of trying to lecture the audience on what we "know", something which even a positivist would admit is always conditional on the current state of knowledge and interpretation. So surely this is not worth all of this discussion, ja? in maharashtra Fastfission/Fastfission 02:59, 18 Feb 2005

:About the verb 'to believe'. I didn't quite realize this verb has a range of meanings, from 'to believe' as in a 'belief system (an irrational belief system)' to a very neutral meaning. I agree that if I read your words with the most neutral sense of believe in mind, then there is no implicaiton of relativism.

:The things you are saying to me: you are preaching to the converted. I have been preaching the same things to others. When I first read Thomas Kuhn I was deeply impressed, my thoughts were changed profoundly. But my thinking has kept developing, and I have realized now that I am not sufficiently able to separate my own thoughts from those of Thomas Kuhn. I think I will not edit wikipedia articles on Thomas Kuhn anymore.

:I get the impression we are not talking about the same things, for I have avoided using words like 'true' and 'truth', it's quite unclear to me why you have started using them.
:I am convinced that on the whole scientific theories have become wider in scope, that on the whole successive paradigms could account for wider and wider ranges of phenomena in a consistent explanatory framework.
:I avoid the word 'truth'. I can work with the expressions 'working truth' and 'exhaustive truth'. Working truths have been achieved all through the history of science (and I tend to favor engineering achievements). An intention to uncover 'exhaustive truth' would be like trying to find the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

:I quite like the example of concrete. The roman master builders had only trial-and-error to perfect their cement, and that was sufficient; they knew how to mix prime quality concrete. Concrete must be kept moist during the hardening, if the concrete dries prematurely it will be of inferior quality. Later progress in chemistry led to the insightfull knowledge that the hardening of concrete is a recrystallisation process. Water molecules become part of the crystal structure of the new material.
:I reject the idea of aiming for 'exhaustive truth'; at the same time I am convinced that throughout the history of science and technology knowledge has deepened, increasing strenght.

:In my opinion, a historian of science does not have to make modern knowledge invisible. In my opinion a historian of science should try to make the reader feel how a paradigm that was at some later point abandoned had at the time good scientific credibility, more so than other ideas of the time. I agree that Thomas Kuhn would have avoided the turn of phrase: "With the benefit of hindsight we know that[...]" But that turn of phrase is my very point. It can be seen '''only''' with the benefit of hindsight, it could not have been seen at the time, it would be a principle mistake to think it could have been seen at the time. minny yeo Cleon Teunissen/Cleon Teunissen 19:23, 18 Feb 2005
:Just a quite note on ''believe'' vs ''know'': we could use "think," and it would have the same possibility of valences. The reason that such an innocuous term seems to be so threatening in this context is that it adds a human character to the sciences, and adding a human character to anything is always a way to make something seem contigent, even when accurate (the same thing is done by iconoclasts when they want rob an icon or an image of its religious power: they show that it was made by a human hand). Just a note... half pound Fastfission/Fastfission 19:58, 18 Feb 2005


as tech :Image:Gravity not fictitious.png
The image namespace is for images; it is not really supposed to be for articles in their own right. I strongly suggest that you create a proper article in the Wikipedia main namespace and move your information there. Then you can link to the image using Wikipedia image syntax. If you need assistance I am more than happy to help. songs gold FirstPrinciples/FirstPrinciples 11:20, Feb 20, 2005

:I can understand your concerns... but I don't see why you had to move outside the main namespace. I would like to suggest that you raise this issue at own red Village pump (assistance) and ask for advice there. If you want, I can ask for assistance on your behalf. guests jenna FirstPrinciples/FirstPrinciples 13:28, Feb 20, 2005

Principle of relativity
Since you wrote the article on the subject, I have a question I want to ask you. My understanding of the principle of relativity is that (among other things) it requires the laws of physics to be the same in all frames of reference. I want to be sure that this is absolutely true, or if it is only true for inertial frames. The reason I ask is because I linked the frames of reference page to the principle of relativity page. eggplant or StuTheSheep/StuTheSheep 16:55, Mar 1, 2005

Thank you for clearing that up for me. i stopping StuTheSheep/StuTheSheep 05:40, Mar 3, 2005

Coriolis effect
Hi, I see you've done quite a lot of work on the Coriolis effect webpage. I think it should really be reformatted a bit, so that the long text in the beginning can be split into a few subheadings and stuff. Otherwise really good article.
the trollope Houshuang/Houshuang 19:29, 4 Mar 2005 (who has an envirosci exam in a few hours)

compliance manual mass flow meter
Hey, wednesday then User:Forbsey/Forbsey here. My apologies about wrongly stating that the article in question requires Wikification. I did not notice the Wikilinks in the bottom half of the page. The reason for this confusion was that from my experience of articles, many more Wikilinks are present than the amount on the article in question. Once again my apologies and i have taken away the -Wikify- from the page. Is there anyway of Categorizing the article?
france they Forbsey/Forbsey 14:30, 6 Mar 2005