Talk:Not even wrong/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Not even wrong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Applies to more than just science?
The original phrase may have referred to statements that were ostensibly scientific but in fact were not, but in practice today I think it applies more widely, and certainly in philosophy. One example is the category error. For example, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is not even wrong. More technical applications of "not even wrong" would be to: self-contradictory statements or systems of statements, such as The Liar Paradox; something like Russell's paradox; and even, according to Wittgenstein (initially anyway), Russell's attempted repair of the paradox via his theory of types.
The crucial question is, exactly what is the current usage of the phrase. If it really is applicable only to science then WP:IRS demands at least a couple of robust sources for that opening statement of the lede, otherwise I think it's falling foul of WP:OR. But if it is more broad, which in my experience it is, then perhaps a small change is in order. I reckon most of the current science-based content can remain just as it is as a primary example of the topic, but with the lede changed a bit to make it clear that the phrase is actually applicable more broadly. I'd have already made the change, for your perusal, but these days in Wikipedia, WP:ROWN is just a fond memory, and WP:BOLD a fool's errand, so I merely and timidly make the suggestion here. Sleety Dribble (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)