GeorgeFThomson

Welcome!

Hello, GeorgeFThomson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Guettarda 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

BRPierce / Tim Vickers / Slrubenstein

BR, thank you, not TR.

I'm hardly the "maximum authority in logic;" merely someone who has made a study of formal logic and who values disciplined thinking. It seems, however, as if you consider yourself to be an authority; certainly, you seem willing to declare that your own intuitions are superior to conclusions derived from deductive or inductive reasoning.

In the matter of communication, I am perhaps a bit more of an authority, as it's my field of expertise; I've been writing professionally for roughly twenty years, editing professionally for fifteen, and teaching English for ten.

Consequently, I stand by my advice. It is impossible to master the art of writing without first mastering the craft. Multiple layers of meaning are constructed through skill and intimate familiarity with usage and idiom--again, craft leading to art. This advice, I would argue, is common sense, and applies to any other rigorously intellectual pursuit. You cannot "better logic" without first mastering logic; you cannot meaningfully criticize modern evolutionary synthesis without first cultivating at least a journeyman understanding of the principles and research behind it.

Naturally, you are free to disregard this advice; however, I think it's extremely unlikely that you will ever be able to engage in meaningful debates on evolution if you do so. Far too many critics try to fly without first learning how to walk; invariably, they land on their faces.

You're correct concerning the problem I posed; there are three equally-probable outcomes (MM, MF, FM,) and consequently, the probability is 1/3. Knowing which bird is definitely male immediately increases the probability to 1/2.

Lastly, there's a term for what you appear to be trying to define as "pure logic"--that term is "epistemology." I'm afraid it's not a new concept; a great deal of study has been done on the ways in which humans process information and synthesize meaning. I would highly recommend a course of study in epistemology and cognitive psychology if you wish to pursue research in this area. Best of luck to you. --BRPierce (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, well BRPierce, sometimes you learn more by reading everything as an observer and not an insider subject to biases. I consider myself, humbly, the maximum proponent of Pure Logic, Logic, Complete Logic, Illogic, etc. My IQ is subjectively very high ! And and a free writer of words and meanings ! And sometimes you have to ask me what is all implied ! At my age, to me Evolution was only a bad nightmare in human history and Science. Anybody who stands for Evolution and Governments, simply do not know what Evolution really is, not what is implied to any acceptable reason of normal logic a mind should have consciously or subconsciously ! It is further a very dangerous logic, worse than Biblical or other Religions logic ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Epistemology: a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

Look and hear and understand: Pure Logic, is all reason and mind analysis applicable to all Sciences ! Pure Logic is: positive logic, complete logic, negative logic, illogic, everything in science methods, analysis, methodology, and is all word semantics logic. Pure Logic if it has an old definition is redefined by my person ! Pure is as in Chemistry a pure substance, with all components, like "crude oil". (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

I would suggest that someone who considers himself the "maximum proponent" of any concept is far from unbiased. I also tend to be unimpressed by high I.Q., for two reasons: one, my own is (objectively) extremely high, and two, I know how little that means.

I suspect that I understand rather better than you think. Certainly, I think that it is better to be informed than uninformed, and I strive to ensure that I know the facts before I form an opinion on a topic. I eagerly await demonstration of your revolutionary powers of reasoning; however, until such time as they are demonstrated, I hope you will forgive me for maintaining a healthy skepticism. I have heard such claims before (Gene Ray's "Timecube" comes to mind.) --BRPierce (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When somebody under my study proves to be as or better that me ThePureLogic#1, then that person will be thus given this title, and will be made ThePureLogic#2, simply as in recognition of my work and my teachings to him or her ! That is as unbiased as you can be ! You have to have a realized ego of my level, to be able to be as me ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

My IQ is normally medium high, but as a very singular male, I am strangely subjective ! Something like the father
                      of all Psychology and Psychiatry, to some degree ! 

(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

BRPeirce: If you think I am a "Gene Ray and his time cube" which I did not know about, you must not understand what I am writing, clearly. You would have to get a copy of my book, at jointquest.com, and then ask me a whack of questions ! By what he writes I do not know the purpose or the means or if there is any reason ! I think it would be difficult for Gene Ray to qualify, near anything I stand for, although he might have a lot of un-written viable logic. But he might be a good disciple ! He sure has his reasons about a Civil War if something happened to Obama! As to him claiming to be the wisest of humans, that is a bit fallen off the tree. And his time cube and 4 days, is a bit "hollow-like nobody home or a hoax" in logic, and the guy is a bit old now ! But I would use his idea with this cube for something applicable. More than one mind is better, as to particular expertise in each field. As to me and Pure Logic I only need data, results, premises, and some procedural way used, but I am not for example a neurosurgeon ! But with all data and a bit of time and analysis I could probably outwit a neurosurgeon ! In whatever field of knowledge I decide to function in, I generally top the knowledge in it, but in a simplistic way, generally, and not always get the top grades. I am also very slow to responses, on something, as my mind does function slowly on new concepts or the unknown ! ETC. But very high in dexterity ! Actually I am still laughing at Dr. G(R)ene after seeing him on youtube.com ...(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

..I am a nearly twin with a very mathematics IQ etc. brother. But he is more the standard of the day ! I have thought out a 4 day cube but with an intricate mechanism, rubic style. Generally I do not get into such complex things as designing or having the capacity too design a rubic cube. That is for the geniuses ! But I had to visualize it first and take ideas from elsewhere. Other than living to "some degree" in a society borg style minded, I do not express myself about evil,in such a way. Although I did when I was still with the Evangelical Church !

Some life Experiences in University studies.

I have been in exams of known "pathetic professors", in which there was no relation between what he had given in class. I do not know to this day, from which book, those that passed, studied from. And it was all numbers and equations ! I have been in exams of real "top notch professors", and passed in the final exam, with 70% as the killing question was worth 30%, and because I did not remember a strange equation, that others, got their hands onto, I failed that question. I have been in exams were everybody filled in pages of writing, trying to solve a problem, and I gave in one page, with a few answers,and one was, no-solution or not solvable ! I have been in an exam where, the main problem was presenting the correct equation system of 4 equations and 4 variables, which is not solvable normally, without computer programming (I did do a 4x4 Gauss system of equations in Special Mathematics, filling a whack of exam pages, and finally got it right) . But there was a way and only one way by double substitution to eliminate one variable or similar, which I did not do. I solved it by a heard idea of trial and error, and after much deliberation with the professor, she gave me some passing points ! I solve things graphically many times, that I learned in systems of representation, etc...! I was pretty good in Chemistry, pathetic in most Physics to do with electricity or electronics, pretty good in other Physics, reasonably good in Mathematics. Too good in word and literature analysis, good in hydraulics, very dedicated in laws, loved soil mechanics, and concrete laboratory, structures has finally sunk more into my "fat" head(invisible forces) and "pathetic" professors, road design and pavements was great, steel projects was a winner, sanitary engineering was only good to me on paper, ETC.

As to literature and languages, I excel that is probably one reason I was not attracted to this, in my studies !(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Evolutionists seem to have the answers to all, and don't seem to see the "nitty gritty", of their logic ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

---

Old Discussions

AWAITING ANY THAT WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING

I especially am awaiting "Tim Vickers" and "Sl......stein" !

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Evolution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to User talk:TimVickers constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC).(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Evolution. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

George, this is a warning: your pattern of contributions on talk pages indicates that you do not understand many of our policies. At the top of this page is a list of links to policies that any effective Wikipedia editor has to know, as they guide our activities here. I urge you to take a short break and read through the 5 Pillars carefully, with extra attention to our NPOV and NOR policies and to the "what Wikipeida is not" policy. Look at the top of this page, and you will see the link to the 5 pillars, and that page has links to the core policies I mention.

Just to be very clear about this warning: talk pages are for discussion of how to improve an article. Improvements of articles have to comply with our core policies, certainly the ones I mentioned. Talk pages are not to be used as soap-boxes. To use them as soap-boxes is disruptive. If you do not take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and show that you will work within our policies by refraining from disruptive edits, I will block you from editing for a short time in order to encourage you to use that time to read those policies carefully. I hope that the next time I read a comment or edit you make it is in the spirit of our policies. There are plenty of people here who share your personal beliefs, and who oppose your personal beliefs. Our policies are meant to provide a framework for all of us to work together. Your recent edits at the Evolution page suggest that you prefer to work against us. This is not a question of what you believe but rather how anyone here edits. Please read the policies. If something is unclear, feel free to ask for explanation. Newcomers can also request mentors to help them learn the ropes. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned you, now I blocked you. Blocks are not punitive. They are meant to provide time to rethink and in your case to study our policies and guidelines so that when the block expires in a week you can edit without these kinds of conflicts. I hope you find reading up on our policies enlightening and helpful to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Actually I am blocked until the 12 November (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)).

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am blocked really to the 12 November.

A block for only one week is generous. George, you have made one article edit of middling quality; most of your effots are clearly spent in creationist argument baiting on various talk pages or promotion of your pet theories. Further spam and quasi-legal threats do not endear, I must add. Take this time to become familiar with Wikipedia and its stated goals. If you cannot or will not work within the community's framework, this account will undoubtedly be blocked undefinitely. — Scientizzle 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

George, concerning this: you seem to be confusing an encyclopedia for a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog. It has policies other public-use spaces (like facebook or my space) do not have. I implore you to read the policies starting with the 5 pillars. Watch how other people edit, how they collaborate and build up articles. I bet it took you more than one week to learn how to be an engineer; I am asking you to take just one week to study the policies and guidelines for working on our encyclopedia. A week is shorter than most courses! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also recommend you take a look at http://www.conservapedia.com. In particular, their articles on logic are in a very poor shape, they might greatly appreciate your contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, TimVickers and Slrubenstein. First I am civilized, and what I say or express has a reason ! The problem you did not find one ! It is concerning, that on the article of Evolution, you do not have even if it where balanced to have external links to the countering ideas and theories, not to mention wikipedia links ! And in the discussion area, you have been bothered much by empty reasoning ! The discussion area of each article should be clarified, to the person, give us your idea, we will consider it. Any idea, if religious, simply state,that we will make reference to this in the religion area ! But you guys cut people off, because it would seem you are defending evolution, and biased...! If I cannot discus with you in the discussion area, why do you not permit me on your users page ?(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a blog. It is not a chatroom. I am not here to discuss anything except how to improve articles in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. The Evolution article complies with our guidelines and policies. If you see a specific part of the article that does not comply with our policies, let us know. But you had better read our policies first, as you continue to show that you do not know them, or do not understand them. If you are not interested in that please go find a blog or chatroom. Please stop acting as if this were a chatroom. It is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Slrubenstein. You may have your policies, but what I am getting at is, that the ARTICLE on evolution does not have any links to other themes related or contrary to EVOLUTION. Would this be like some kind of "BIAS", or policy ? (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Secondly, when my book is sold enough, I need

to establish on wikipedia.org my theories and the reference to it on the EVOLUTION pages, or at least on the Philosophy pages. That is if it qualifies, or if it can be a self alone standing article...? (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

When the time comes,I have clear Science refuting to most or all

the Evolution article...! Will this be studied in the discussion section to at least let the public see, your logic and that of others, as to the reasoning used....? (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia has no bias. The article on Evolution provides coverage of all mainstream science on evolution. Any book or article that is relevant and that fulfills our policy requirements can be used as a source. There is also an article on Intelligent Design theory. You ask me a question about your own book. My answer remains unchanged: it depends on whether using your book would comply with policy. I have repeatedly suggested you use this time to learn our policies. We have extensive policies concerning the use of sources in articles. Read those policies to find your answers. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

roger that....!

(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

I have been blocked until the 12 Nov. 2008

I will try and be polite, to try and help Wikipedia,to be the first, Encyclopedia, to better define EVOLUTION.I am not a biased CREATIONIST. I am one of few UNBIASED Scientist's. (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Meanwhile while I am blocked, I can not even "talk-write" to any of the users or moderators ! ! ! As they must be so tired of people writing stupid things, mainly religious "allegations", against Evolution, that they think are scientific. And anyway I am to their minds another Gene Ray, or I am causing them to think too much !(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

George, this is another warning. You are abusing the terms of the block. The reason your talk page is not blocked is in case you want to appeal the block and it allows you to make a case. But I have stated repeatedly, Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not a chat room, it is not a vehicle for your publicizing your own views. I asked you to study our policies and it is clear to me that you either have ignored me or still do not understand our policies. Clearly you have not read the basic five pillars. Use this time to learn how to be a good editor, or you will be blocked indefinitely. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"ARTICLE" "DEVELOPMENT"

 In biology, evolution is the change over time in heritable differences in breeding populations. 
      Biological evolution is driven by the combination of three necessary processes: 
                          reproduction, variation, and selection.

I wanted to suggest a more explicit wording to go with "DRIVEN"and add on growth and survival. Biological evolution is the drive, vigorous pressure, urge, effort, strive, compulsion, of the combination of these necessary processes": "growth", survival, reproduction, variation, and selection, etc. Or something similar...! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

The order of the processes involved in the definition of Evolution, are as such in what I have defined, because I think "selection" or "natural selection", is currently a too wide in scope definition. And to be more precise in what you mean or claim to understand, you have to be a bit more specific...! I have not thought up more components of these processes, to not be "too specific"...!(GeorgeFThomson (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)).

See WP:UP#NOT And do not claim that you are proposing any improvements to the evolution article: if your proposals do not comply with our core policies, then they are irrelevant, unconstructive, and disruptive and do not constitute acceptable discussion. To discuss a proposed improvement to an article you must be sure it is compliant with our core content policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me user talk: Slrubenstein. I will try and not be controversial. And if please indicate to me exactly what is categorized as such. And if any discussion be not considered "policy" or in the interests of Wikipedia.org , I will understand. Thanks. (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Meanwhile thanks for having me "aboard", as merely a participant as best as possible, trying to convey correct Science ideas, to what is categorized as Science, i.e: Evolution. My contact with you by these means is meaningful to me ! Thanks again ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edits to Talk:The God Delusion

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and please familiarise yourself with the purpose of a talk page. A talk page is for discussing the content of the article. Contributions that are not relevant to that aim may be deleted. Hence my recent deletion of your additions to Talk:The God Delusion. If you have any comments on the article, by all means make them. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please heed the above advise. If you want to chat about something, use IM or something, but keep the talk pages of articles limited to discussions as to how to improve the articles. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Philosophy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:Philosophy. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. decltype 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Back from Exile today 17 Dec 2013

GeorgeFThomson GeorgeFThomson (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

On board an Encyclopedia of "ALL" of Human knowledge, activities and "un-biased HISTORY", and un-followed original Work 22Dec2015

...I do love wikipedia.org ! But do not swallow it all whole without using a bit of reason and logic! ...Really what for...? Obscurrantism buried humans in the dark middle ages for 100's and 100's of years! ...AT LEAST we are being iluminated quite a bit with wikipedia! GeorgeFThomson (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

MY OTHER OLD USER PAGE - back to wikipedia Fri21Sep2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeFThomson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:general_concensus2012

General concensus2012 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)