text:
User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 2/Truth

Introduction
Mathematics is by nature a highly realistic and objective subject; however, this should not be taken to mean that mathematical objects are unconditional, and their knowledge is a priori. Truth in mathematics primarily arises from the success of its concepts and ideas when put into practice. One prominent way in which Truth creates issues in Mathematics is through a mathematical fallacy. Mathematical fallacies can best be defined as mathematical arguments which are being used inappropriately

Howlers
A Howler is a mathematically correct conclusion involving incorrect lines of reasoning. An example is shown in the accompanying diagram. Through correct interpretation of the lines Through correct interpretation of the division sign, the answer yields ¼. However, through incorrect interpretation, by cancelling the 6 on the numerator and denominator, the answer also yields ¼. This then poses the question as to whether the ¼ derived from the Howler is any less true than the ¼ derived from the correct interpretation of the division sign.

Verification & Language
Mathematical knowledge is being recognised more frequently as empirical rather than absolute knowledge. By doing so, Mathematics opens itself up to much more interpretation and much less truth. Truth in mathematics comes through another concept – ‘verification’ and if one’s theorem or concepts can withstand the rigorous process of verification then it is truthful. Verification, and ultimately truth, has to do with the alignment of a mathematical statement with the facts of the world. As is truth in any discipline yet with Mathematics there is an additional layer of scrutiny which comes from the possession of its own language. This can be seen in the Howler diagram whereby a division sign belongs to the language of Mathematics, a language with no sovereignty nor state whose truth is not absolute but instead able to be moulded and ‘verified’ by such Mathematical fallacies

Conclusion
Thus, truth in mathematics is a result of the success of its concepts in practice yet its autonomous language opens itself up to multiple methods of verification and thereby potentially resulting in multiple truths.

Statistical Truth in Everyday Life
Statistics is an area of mathematics that is required and used in most walks of life due to its interdisciplinary nature and 'statistical significance' being a requirement for publication in many fields. The definition of statistics is 'the science of using information discovered from collecting, organising and studying numbers', giving the impression that there is only one form of the 'truth' in statistical analysis, due to its quantitative nature. However the weight of statistics can often lead to its manipulation, seen greatly in politics when using statistics as propaganda.

Statistical Literacy
Katherine K. Wallman defines '"Statistical Literacy" [as] the ability to understand and critically evaluate statistical results that permeate or daily lives'. Poor statistical literacy can often lead to confusion and can often be a conscious choice in order to manipulate the stats at hand. For example, in the Nationwide Building Society's 'Great British Family Report' a number of 'averages' were claimed such as 'the average family consists of two children' and 'the average amount spent on a family car is £8,911 with Ford Focus the car of choice'. Throughout the text there is no reference to the 'average' they have referred to in these statistics; is it the mode, median, mean? And why has this average been chosen over others?

Manipulation of Statistics in Politics
Lacking statistical literacy in this context is not dire, however vague terms like this can mean winning or losing elections in politics. During the EU Referendum in 2016, the figure of '£350 million a week to the EU', which would allegedly go to the NHS, was plastered on buses and in the media, as shown in Figure 1, and later admitted to be a lie by leave campaigner Nigel Farage on National Television. Even if this statistic was the truth, it would mean the UK would be sending the EU £252 a year per person in the country, a mere 0.6% of national income. This also ignores the rebate of money the UK receives from the EU, reducing the cost to £60 per person, according to the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) The manipulation of statistics here and grey area of the 'truth' can be seen as what led to the leave campaign winning the referendum by only 1.9%.

Statistical Significance vs. the Truth
It is very important to note that even if something has statistical significance, it does not mean that it is the truth. This is why in the digital age of fake news, statistical literacy is one of the most important tools to have so that, at an individual level, we can discover what we perceive to be our truth through our own interpretation of the data at hand, rather than relying on outside biased sources, with varying levels of statistical literacy, to do this for us.

Introduction
Cartography is one of the disciplines that has evolved the most since its creation thanks to new scientific discoveries and technological advances. Being a complex discipline, cartography is both at the center of the creation maps and of the study of ancient maps. Maps are a ‘diagrammatic representation of an area of land or sea showing physical features, cities, roads, etc.’ (Oxford Language Dictionary). However, the reliability of maps and their sources have often been debated.

History of maps
Between the Antiquity and the Great Discoveries, maps were mainly drawn on stones, papyrus and then later on different types of papers. Furthermore, maps were supported by literature of their time, this included writing on cosmology for the Incas or the Bible for middle-aged European society. During the Great Discoveries, the use of tools like astrolabes and compasses, has allowed researchers and settlers to draw representations of the new territories they were discovering as accurately as possible. In 1507, the German Waldeesmüller represented for the first time America when he published The Waldeesmüller wall map. The Great Discoveries were the apogee of cartography because so many territories were discovered. Moreover, the 14th of August 1959, the American satellite Explorer 6 took the first satellite picture of the Earth. Satellite and plane images are still today one of the most relatable evidence to support the creation maps.

Different types of truth
Truth in cartography is contestable. Cartography today wants to inform, represent, control, act and imagine the world we live in. However, cartography has usually been accused of being subjective and of only representing one point of view through the cutting off of information. In the Middle-Age, maps were usually representing Earth but also paradise and hell because most of the European society was Christian. Truth was therefore contestable because it represented what the catholic religion portrayed as being the “human” and the “divine” worlds. Later on, during the Great Discoveries, what was considered as truthful maps were only the European ones used by settlers to find their way around and inform the colonizing countries of what they discovered. Furthermore, in our modern-world, maps only show what the designers of the map want us to see. The flat map of the world by Mercator for example is well-known for not being proportional to the real dimensions of the continents and countries’ size compared to the map of the world seen from the poles.

Conclusion
Maps are the pillars of our civilizations. Since the Antiquity, they have allowed men to find their bearings and later to represent the newly discovered territories. However, it is important to remember that even though cartography as a discipline tries to look at the world in the most objective way possible, maps are usually subjective and thus deliver a message. Truth in cartography therefore has to be considered carefully when maps are used as evidence to support arguments.

Introduction
Behavioural Genetics is a scientific discipline that studies human behaviour and focuses on the impact of genes. It combines molecular and quantitative genetics. This discipline incorporates the idea of interdisciplinarity, combining knowledge from biology and psychology. Behavioural Genetics is an example of a field of study where subjective phenomenon (e.g. intelligence) is investigated, and quantitative methods are applied to create assumedly objective scientific truths. Different approaches result in Behavioural Genetics being pluralist. Moreover, the results can be biased, and thus, the truth is manipulated.

Molecular and Quantitative Genetics
Researchers conduct twin and adoption studies to understand the impact of quantitative genetics. In contrast, molecular genetics are often investigated through DNA studies. Behavioural Genetics uses animal research. Experiments with animal models need to follow ethical guidelines. The main strength is that in the closed environment genes can be investigated. The variables can be controlled, but lower ecological validity can be a limitation. Furthermore, the validity of the scientific truth obtained by animal research might not be fully applicable to humans. Therefore, the truth is dependent on the accuracy of the study.

The truth in this discipline is based on the scientific method, which includes peer review. When a group of scientists investigate the same issue, the results obtained become truth only when they correspond. Peer review highlights the idea of personal knowledge becoming a shared knowledge, a well-known fact that is objective.

Pluralism
Pluralism is present in Behavioural Genetics. The truth can be only obtained when different approaches and perspectives are considered. Human behaviour is very complex. Genetics are combined with environmental and social factors that together impact the behaviour of mammals. Previously mentioned molecular genetics suggest that behaviour is influenced by Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, small changes in the DNA structure. Secondly, quantitative genetics supports the idea of heritability of the behavioural traits. Thirdly, the socio-environmental approach states that human behaviour is impacted by external factors. Therefore, the plurality in Behavioural Genetics suggests that there is no absolute truth. In contrast, there are many answers to the same question that use different approaches.

Biases
Behavioural Genetics is a scientific area of research. The truth might be manipulated to match the current political situation and the socially expected results. Truth in science gives power and can claim authority. The issue of eugenics highlights how the truth in genetics can be manipulated and power over others gained. It is until the absolute truth is challenged and undermined. It highlights the controversy around Behavioural Genetics, as new findings can lead to the favouritism of a specific gene and discrimination.

This discipline can be impacted by western bias. It is created because white people are the majority of subjects participating in the research within this discipline. It limits the generalizability of the obtained results. Thus, the truth is not objective. Minorities can have constricted access to the treatment of specific diseases due to underrepresentation. Therefore, to obtain absolute and universal truth, studies on Behavioural Genetics needs to be more inclusive.

Conclusion
Behavioural Genetics tries to explain the social phenomenon by molecular and quantitative genetics. Therefore, sometimes complex social issues cannot be limited to one, absolute, and objective truth. Moreover, pluralism and the use of scientific methods limit the objectivity of one, absolute truth. Finally, the truth is impacted by biases that limit the universality and generalizability.

Introduction
The controversial topic of gender and sex is heavily debated in society. What constitutes someone’s true gender and sex? Are they biological phenomena, or are we socialised into these roles? Must our sex and gender always be complementary? Widely accepted truths are that sex is the categorisation of human beings based on their reproductive organs, whereas gender is a range of characteristics and behaviours pertaining to men and women. Gender is often seen as a much more complex topic than sex, as it manifests as a culmination of biological and social factors. However, as Nietzsche states, “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force”. In this sense, our understanding of sex, and especially gender, is contingent, and we must treat the topic with caution.

Essentialist Views on Sex and Gender
An essentialist understanding of gender and sex is commonly supported by sociobiologists. It believes that men and women are fundamentally different for reasons that are unchangeable. This theory dates back to prehistoric times, where few social roles existed. There was the hunter-gatherer role: responsible for obtaining sustenance, and the role of bearing children. Naturally, as men are, on average, physically stronger and quicker, they would be hunters, whereas women, those who bore children, were usually confined to the gatherer role. As essentialism is the perspective that “every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function”, in this prehistoric society, your sex was your destiny, leaving little room to explore different constructions of gender. However, this outdated, essentialist view on gender does raise problems in society. The very prevalent issue of sexism stems from the belief that men are stronger, more capable, and better leaders than women, leading to issues such as the underrepresentation of women in politics. Furthermore, Thomas Laqueur argues that our current understanding of the two sexes being opposite and distinct, arises from the fact that medical examiners viewed the vagina as an inverted penis, catalysing the divergence of male and female gender roles and social positions.

Social Constructivist Views on Sex and Gender
Social constructionist understandings of gender believe that typically masculine or feminine characteristics and behaviours, and the roles they play in society are socially constructed, and are therefore separate from your born sex. This corresponds to the constructivist theory of truth, which argues that truth is not universal, varying across time and cultures. A study done by Margaret Mead, who investigated three tribes in Papua New Guinea, supports this theory. She found that the relationship between gender and sex between the three tribes (Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli) varied greatly. For example, in the Arapesh tribe, there were no different gender roles, and both sexes conformed to the American stereotype of a “feminine” personality, whereas in the Tchambuli tribe, both stereotypically ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ gender roles existed, but the sexes that realised these gender roles were reversed from the American norm. We must also consider people that do not identify solely with either male or female gender norms, and how we must account for them in our understanding of gender. From this, we can understand gender as a spectrum of different societal values, of which we choose and are socialised into choosing, the ones with which we most identify; a culmination of these factors then forms our understanding of the truth of our own gender.

Introduction
International Relations is a discipline that emerged after the First World War and that seeks to further develop our understanding of world politics. However, this diverse field has many different theories that clash with each other. A theory can be defined as a simplifying device that makes us decide which historical facts we will use to construct our own opinion. Therefore, each theory of International Relations has a different view of the international order and hence each has a different truth, and therefore leads to pluralism in the field of international relations. Realism and Liberalism are two main theories that look at world politics in opposite ways, each considering its opinion the truth. Alongside these two traditional theories is constructivism which emphasises the importance of ideational rather than material truth.

Liberalism
Liberalism is a theory that believes in the potential to create a more peaceful world that has strong international cooperation fueled by institutions. Liberalists defend that there is a potential for peace since humans have the capacity to change their environment. This branch of international relations is still powerful as there are examples in the past where this theory was correct. Indeed, the end of the Cold War in 1989 proved that humans could resolve an international conflict without war and violence. In the same way, the strength of international institutions such as the European Union defends the liberalist point of view. It can therefore be seen that in the function of the examples from the past that one chooses to analyze, liberalism can be considered as the true explanation of world politics. However, liberalism can be countered if one chooses to look at different historical facts, hence the creation of realism.

Realism
The core beliefs of realism are that nation states are the only unit that matters in the international system and that world politics is driven by self-interest and the nation’s will to increase their power. Realists also defend that the state of war in world politics cannot be changed due to the selfish and greedy side of human nature. We can therefore see that in opposition to liberalism, realism is a pessimistic view of international relations. However, realism can be defended with historical examples such as Brexit, showing us that supranational institutions are not seen as beneficial by every country. In the same way, when the second world war occurred, it showed that even international institutions such as the League of Nations could not stop inter-state violence, proving the international system always comes back to a state of war. We can consequently see that the “truth” about how world politics’ work changes in function of the theory one adopts, showing the multilateral aspect of truth. .

Constructivism
Whilst liberalism and realism are the two fundamental theories which have guided international relations for many years, new theories are constantly being developed with one of these being constructivism. Constructivism essentially argues that the world and decisions made in the world are completely of our making and not through a traditional theory. Essentially, it is our actions and interactions in the world which dictate outcomes in international relations and thus through constructivism there is not one absolute truth as presented through realism and liberalism but instead the individual human experience creates their own truth of the world which they then apply to International Relations. . Alexander Wendt makes clear this concept of constructivism when saying that 500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons. Should truth in IR be determined by either liberalism or realism then objectively, the material structure of 500 weapons is more dangerous; however, because of the ongoing and historical conflict between the US and North Korea, the truth adopted by most Americans is that those 5 weapons are more dangerous than the 500 in Britain.

Conclusion
Overall, in international relations truth is created through pluralism of different perspectives. Whilst there are several theories which can attempt to classify what is the ‘true’ and ‘right’ decision in International Relations, with Liberalism and Realism being the two dominant theories, constructivism demonstrates that ultimately human nature and social relationships will influence this truth, emphasising the truth of the ideational structure rather than the material structure.

Introduction
It is clear that story telling is a fundamental part of human nature, it would not have evolved if it did not serve a purpose. The word mythology is used extremely widely, from describing our belief in corporations and nations, to describing old stories, legends and religious texts. I am using the word myth to refer to the human tendancy to use our capacity for understanding stories, social dynamics and other humans to understand other phenomina, from the natural (e.g. Gods of thunder, the sun and harvest) to the sociological (e.g. nations, limited companies, brands) to the psychological (e.g. Jung's archetypes, Frued's Oedipal complex and the angel on one shoulder devil on the other). Myths are often associated with falsehood because of their interpretation from a modern perspective, a lack of understanding of their metaphorical nature and their replacement with much more specific scientific models. Research and analysis into these topics largely exists in the form of books and lectures rather than scientific papers due to both the nature of the subject and the rift between psychoanalysis and the scientific disciplines.

However, when considering the meaning of the word truth important to consider the concepts of pragmatic, psychological, Dawinian and consensus truths as well as empirical, especially in the case of mythology. Carl Jung, Freud and other more modern psychologists argue that the patterns contained in many stories, especially those most ancient and containing themes that appear across isolated cultures, contain metaphrical truths about the patterns that crop up in human societies and lives. Harari and others argue we still use myths to organise our societies today.

Pragmatic and Psychological Truthes
Pragmatic truth is a doctorine of defining truth by it's success or failure when acted out. Psychological truth is something a truth about the workings of the mind rather than the workings of the world. An example of a psychological and pragmatic truth is the hero myth which is not only universal across cultures but a useful framework for people who suffer from anxiety or depression. In the hero myth the hero goes out to voluntarily face the most terrible monster, often gaining help and power from defeating more managable enemies and the aid of friends along the way and in the end finds something of great value in his or her victory. This is metaphorically analogous to the way that voluntarily facing their fears in managable parts helps people with anxiety.

An example of an old story that embodies a pragmatic and sociological truthes when taken metaphorically is the story of the flood. In this story a god or force of nature comes down and destroys a civilization for the cumulative wrongdoings or neglegence of its inhabitants. This story also appears to be very universal, cropping up in many ancient texts, notably, several times in the bible. This story is a metaphorical representation of of or response to the way individual immorality can erode the foundations of a society, climate change being the most obvious and current real example of this being climate change, another being the 2008 crash, which, according to Sapienza, can be accounted for by the abuse of public trust by investment bankers and conversely the public misplacing their money and trust in them. Taking the story of the flood metaphorically, it can be viewed as a model of a situation that is repeatedly true in human societies.

Darwinian Truth
Darwinian truth is a branch of philosophy that uses the idea that our perceptual frameworks were shaped by our enviroments over the course of evolution. It is related to empirical truth but rather than being tested by the scientific method it is tested by the process of evolution. It is interesting that this method of testing can answer not only questions of the nature of the physical world but questions of value.

Jung argued that the fundamental stories and common themes in stories across isololated cultures must have a biological basis, most biologists and psychologists dismissed this believing the stories could not be passed on through DNA. Peterson argues that these archetypal stories and myths were generated by the same process: people watching how the patterns developed between individuals and within societies and through the telling and retelling of the stories the parts that were either psychologically true or repeatedly observed over generations, that they were remembered and retold until only the stories that were 'more true' and useful than thier original parts and versions survived. This is supported by Nature Communications paper on the evolutionary advantages of the use of stories to help individuals understand one another and organise their societies. Either way, this gives myths pragmatic and Dawinian truth.

Consensus Truth
Truth by concensus is the idea of taking things to be true because people generally agree on them. Although consensus truths are heavily criticized for their unreliability, and in many cases this is entirely valid, some things are made true by consensus, the value money is the most obvious example of this, as well as the existance of limited companies and nations.

Noah Harari argues that the limited companies and nations we now believe in are analogous to our ancient myths of gods and fulfill very similar roles to the churches and god-kings in organizing our societies. This is supported by our tendancy to use our faculty for understanding social dynamics and other human beings to understand entities like brands and nations (as well as, more so in the past, natural phenomina for example deities of thunder, the sun, the harvest havest etcetera). These myths and shared fictions are crucial in saying almost anything about our societies, and to deny the truth of them would make it almost impossible to navigate modern society.

Scientific Truth
Scientific truth is based on observations of physical reality and the empirical testing of hypothese against data. The scientific method attempts to look past the mythological frameworks we use to conceptualize the world, but is still heavily reliant on them. Modern sociological and economic theory rests almost entirely on myths of entities such as nations and companies. Like mythological truth, scientific truth can change over time as the 'mirror' is improved or in the social sciences as the landscape being observed changes.

Scientific theories are often interpreted mythologically. Fritjof Capra show's in great detail how quantum physics can be interpreted through the eastern mythological and philosophical framework. Evolution is another good example of the way scientific theories are interpreted mythologically. It is often implicitally interpreted to be a chain leading towards humanity, this is far from what is implied by the actual processes and history of evolution. However, based on the actions of humans as a whole in claiming dominance of the planet's resources and inhabitants take this mythological interpretation of evolution as truth by concensus, in replacement for the west's previous biblical justification for dominion over the world.

Conclusion
Science has filled many of the gaps previously filled by mythology in our understanding of the physical, observable world. However, it cannot answer questions of value without a mythological framework to interpret it's findings, and some sociological and psychological patterns and truthes are more usefully understood through archetypal stories than empirical data. Furthermore it would be impossible to navigate human society without accepting the reality of the mythological framework we use to conceptualise the entities that make it up.

Truth in Art
Establishing a truth in art seems to be something impossible, the very meaning of art being almost elusive and different for everyone. However in the course of its history, many art movements and artists have thought they possessed this truth.

An objective approach
The history of art can be approached in a very factual, very positivist way. We can study a set of data, based on dates, art movements, the history of a period… One can judge art by comparing it to reality. Some artistic disciplines have the direct aim of approaching art in this rather objective way. One of them is the anthropology of art, a social science interested in art across different cultures. Art has many times been used for a specific purpose, such as for political propaganda. In this case, the art is part of a structure and so is studied objectively with historical data. Based on all these factual and objective aspects it is already possible to establish a kind of truth in art.

Interpretation from facts
We can also use facts to study art and understand a work. The life of the artists, the period in which they lived or their political positions can help to understand the message of an artwork to a greater extent and allows an interpretation closer to the truth of the artist. One can speak of the works of Niki de Saint Phalle which are often interpreted by considering her past and her pain towards it.

Variety of possible truths
But art is not merely a vision of reality or its comparison. Although it evolves in part with society, art reaches another dimension. A more personal and subjective dimension that moves away from everything. Aristotle said “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Each personal experience brings a new form of truth. From one person to another, from one society to another, the approach to art, its understanding and use will be radically different.

This very personal view of people that applies to art in a very general way creates debates about the legitimacy of certain artists, works and movements. One can speak of the debates between iconoclasm and iconodulism. What can be considered art or not? Can we set limits and a framework to a discipline based on personal feeling and imagination? These debates and these different visions of art have enriched the history of art generally and keep doing it nowadays.

Truth in Law
Law can be qualified as the establishment of rules put in place by the state. Observing law as a discipline, we can identify the concept of truth at its foundations. The notion of truth is most commonly expressed in relation to fact and reality. Law describes truth as the 'actual state of things', and emphasises the role of a trial to determine this state. In practice, truth in law is not as black and white of a concept.

Criminal Law
If we look closely at criminal law, we can acknowledge the fact that the truth can be hard to find. The claim that the primary role of a trial is to uncover truth is commonly disputed and should be distinguished from the true focus of determining a 'defendant's guilt or liability'. This distinction is important because substantive truth is often sacrificed in legal proceedings.

Significance of Evidence
For example, rules of evidence such as relevance, admissibility and privilege may lead to the exclusion of facts and consequentially obstruct the evaluation of the whole truth. In addition, the way that the adjudicative process is designed means that each side of a case is going to present selective evidence most advantageous to their argument, arguably causing more distortion of the 'substantive truth'. Larry Laudan highlights this idea in his book “Truth, error and criminal law” (2006). He discusses the difficulty of accessing and assessing evidence in the legal system, despite its central role in what we consider as truth. Laudan concludes that we can express the idea that the truth is based on evidence and not being able to acquire proper evidence can be the reason why truth is distorted.

Scientific vs. Religious Truth
The scientific and religious disciplines both claim the revealing of ‘truth’ as central to their practice. However, it is the way in which these apparent forms of truth are qualified where the conflict can emerge. Jerry A Coyne discusses this idea in his novel ‘Faith vs. Fact’ where he claims that ‘science and religion are incompatible, and you must choose between them’. Scientific truths are based on the correspondence theory of truth: facts are formulated from evidence collected through the observation of physical reality

Religious truths can too have an evidentiary basis - through historical documents or archaeology - but it is rarely verifiable and reproducible in the same way as scientific evidence. There is also an arguably very personal dimension to religious truth, built on the concept of faith formed from individual or community interpretation of scripture. As a result of this, consensus is hard to maintain. Religious disciplines, like theology, can of course present knowledge and reasoned arguments but we cannot expect the same unanimity that we can get from science. This is because of an established trust in the scientific method. The construction of scientific truth is rigorous: experimentation, observation and the formation of falsifiable hypotheses. The system works to create a truth that is harder to dispute. This does not mean that religion is not of value as many of life’s important questions: ‘What is love?’, ‘What is morality?’ do not have answers amenable to the scientific method Furthermore, it is important to note that though scientific truth may be perceived as objective, it is still ‘produced’ and therefore is encoded with biases.

Introduction
In the scientific field, numerous debates about astronomy and cosmology divided the world for more than two centuries. Some of them are still in progress, each party involved claiming their truth. Firstly, cosmology can be defined as the study of the nature and origin of the universe while astronomy is the scientific study of the universe and of objects that exist naturally in space, such as the moon, the sun, planets, and stars.

Galileo affair
Galileo is clearly one of the most important scientists who helped us to improve our vision of space and to surpass previous theories in astronomy. In the early 17th century, the Italian scientist elaborates heliocentrism theories which go against the theory of the time. In fact, heliocentrism is the belief that the sun is at the center of the universe and/or the solar system and that other planets like earth revolve around it. However, at that time, heliocentrism is not the main theory, the core belief for the scientists, philosophers and the church is geocentrism. The geocentric model places earth in the middle of our system and the other planets orbit it. When Galileo elaborates his theory, he is attacked by the church for whom the classical vision could not be questioned. From this moment, we see the emergence of a confrontation around the fundamental notion of truth. The conflict separates two parties, however both party fight in the name of truth. And it is exactly how Galileo will defend himself from the accusation against him. In a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany wrote in 1615, he defends the foundations of reality as a notion that needs to be proven. He relies on the strength of factual proofs, discovered facts from his studies. Therefore, for him it represents a reality and a truth that you can’t deny for any reasons especially religious.

Conclusion
This affair perfectly represents the conflict around the notion of truth. It shows how a term like reality, that seems to always demonstrate what we could call the only truth, can also get dramatically controversial. Finally, truth can be surpassed by strong beliefs and therefore this notion represents an ongoing issue because it shows that truth can get relative.


text:
User:Saleem Khan Anmol

Saleem Khan Anmol is an Indian author and Writer born on January10th 1989.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Saleem Khan Anmol


text:
User talk:182.64.160.163

good afternoon Hello I am new to this part of Wikipedia so this is just an message for some trials so please consider replying thank you sorry to bother you and hoping to listen from you soon

title: User talk:182.64.160.163


text:
History of video games/Platforms/Nvidia Shield TV

History
The first Nvidia Shield TV was launched in 2015. An updated Nvidia Shield TV was released in 2017, which had similar specs to the previous model but in a slimmer case and with additional accessories included. A new revision was released in 2019.

Compute
The original Nvidia Shield TV is based on the Tegra X1 processor with a Maxwell architecture 256 core GPU. The original Shield TV has three gigabytes of RAM.

Hardware
The Nvidia Shield TV has 16 gigabytes of RAM.

The Shield TV sports Wi-Fi AC with 2.4 and 5 gigahertz bands and 2x2 MIMO support.

2017
The 2017 Shield TV streamlined the design, but it still uses an Tegra X1 and has three gigabytes of RAM, though the version of Android used was updated to 7.0. The polygonal design of the shield TV won it a Red Dot Design award in 2017.

2019 Shield TV
The base Shield TV has an Nvidia Tegra X1+ processor.

The base Shield TV has two gigabytes of RAM.

2019 Shield TV Pro
The Shield TV Pro is powered by an Nvidia Tegra X1+ processor.

The Shield TV Pro has three gigabytes of RAM.

Notable games
In 2017 several Nintendo GameCube and Wii games (Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Punchout) received official enhanced emulated releases for the Nvidia Shield TV exclusively in China.


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2020/September

Numbered description list?
Can the items of a description list be numbered automatically? The help document claims that list styles can be nested but I failed to make a description inside a numbered list. My failure is here. The intended format is here. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm unsure quite what you're trying to do. Here's something one can do, that might or might not be in the ballpark:
 * foo
 * bar
 * blork
 * glorp
 * quux
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. My description lists are better now.
 * Next problem: insert code examples into the descriptions in the usual monospaced style. My current best is this section. Can a code block be indented by WikiMedia syntax rather than by including non-breaking spaces (&#160;)? WikiMedia syntax? Ideally align the code block with "A:". Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * There are a few ways I can think of that one might try to achieve this, at least one of which almost works.
 * Here's the one I know almost works, but has a couple of flaws. Embed the code block in a wiki table, and prefix the open-table line with a series of colons.  One flaw is that, although it seems this works, the prefix has to be colons-only, so this can't be combined with the trick to keep an enumerated list from losing count of its items.  A small second flaw, at least within my level of skill at these things, is that the code block cannot be the first line of its cell in the table (because of the way the wiki syntax for the code block interacts with the wiki syntax for a cell of a table); so either the preceding "A:" is separated from the table by some extra vertical space, or you put the "A:" inside the cell, slightly reducing the vertical space, and the "A:" is indented by an extra pixel or so.  It may be possible to get rid of that extra pixel-or-so of indentation by means of table style (or cell style?) that zeros out the one pixel's worth of padding, or margin, or whatever that is, but, as noted actually achieving that is beyond my level of skill.  Here's an example of what it might look like (this is the second version, with less vertical space but the extra horizontal pixel-or-so):

BEGIN foo bar END
 * A:
 * }
 * I'm uncertain whether the wiki may allow a template to contain table syntax that can then be invoked with mixed-prefix indentation. If so, it'd be a way to get around the colons-only limitation; but it may well be subject to the same colons-only limitation.
 * Is there a way to force fixed-width text within a line? I'm a bit foggy on this point; at any rate, if that can be done, one could, somewhat painfully, produce the code block one-line-at-a-time.
 * Possibly there may be some sort of trick one could use involving book-specific style files, which are supported on Wikibooks; you'd need an "interface admin" to help with that. The policy position we settled on, when the interface-admin group was decreed by the Foundation, was, as I recall, that any admin that feels they have a need for the interface bit should be given it (which afaik respects the spirit of the separate bit, to prevent the interface privs from being needlessly spread to all admins).
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pi zero. I'll study and try the techniques, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Another way of indenting pre blocks (other than the table used above) by using the CSS margin-left property. Take a look at the coding for the below:

 Example

However there is a problem in doing so on your page: I think it is because of your non-standard combination of ordered lists and description lists. Using whitespace may be your best option, as the table syntax didn't work too. Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jules. Unfortunately I've descended into hours of trial and error, the last desperate technique of programming. By "non-standard combination" do you mean that a revised combination should be tried; or do you mean I am attempting something beyond the intended capabilities of MediaWiki? If the first case, can a revision be suggested? In the second, I should consider abandoning attempts to impose format and accept the automatic format of MediaWiki? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What I mean can be demonstrated by looking at your coding, a snippet being posted here: Now what you're doing is combining an ordered list (with the first # symbol) with a description list (the following ; character). These are not normally combined in this fashion. Now I can see why you've done it, and it works to some degree, but for some reason it creates a problem when adding CSS to the pre block that follows. I don't really have a good explanation for this. One workaround would be to change your coding combining the two list types; another would be simply to insert white space in your pre block. If you wanted to change your coding, you could do something like this (look at the source):
 * 1) ; How to compare procedure variables. Oberon only allows comparison of a procedure variable to NIL.
 * A: Procedure variables can be compared in this manner:
 * 6. How to compare procedure variables. Oberon only allows comparison of a procedure variable to NIL.
 * A: Procedure variables can be compared in this manner:

 MODULE Temp; VAR p, q: PROCEDURE; PROCEDURE P;     END P;    BEGIN p := P; q := P;     (*IF p = P THEN END;*)  (* does not compile *) IF p = q THEN END (* but this works *) END Temp. This looks quite similar to User:PeterEasthope/sandbox, but is differently coded. Or else just use whitespace to shift the coding in the pre block. Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm changing the coding as you describe. Automation is good but in this circumstance, it's too devious. Better to make the result directly. Finishing the page will take a few more days. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s. Appears the last resort is to use HTML5 tags; <ol> </ol>, <dt> </dt>,   <dd> </dd> and etc. I'm working on a section in my sandbox. Closing and nesting all the tags properly requires non-trivial effort but it works. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the conversation
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.

The UCoC Drafting Committee wants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?

Please join the conversation and share this invitation with others who may be interested to join, too.

To reduce language barriers during the process, you are welcomed to translate this message and the Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review. You and your community may choose to provide your opinions/feedback using your local languages.

To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page, and the FAQ, on Meta.

Thanks in advance for your attention and contributions, The Trust and Safety team at Wikimedia Foundation, 17:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Cucumber
Wikibooks has, for example, Cookbook:Cucumber and Horticulture/Cucumber. The former is matched to the Wikidata item on Cucumbers, d:Q2735883, and thus to Wikipedia articles, Commons, and so on; the latter is not, as there can only be a 1:1 link. the linked Wikidata, Wikipedia and Commons pages are about all aspects of cucumbers, including horticulture, not just cooking with them.

Why match to the cookbook page, and not the horticulture page? Should there not be a higher level page, which is paired with sister projects? Pigsonthewing (discuss • contribs) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The Cookbook is considered to be a single book, organised as a namespace due to its size. Each book is considered independent with the only higher level structure being analogous to a bookshelf or subject area. Unless someone chooses to write a book on cucumbers, encapsulating both the horticulture and cooking, there won't be a higher level page. Of course, it is also possible that even if we were to do this, someone else would write another book that happened to involve cucumbers - e.g., science projects using cucumbers - and this would then not be linked. I can't think of any structural way within the intent of Wikibooks that can solve the Wikidata problem. Frankly, that's not surprising because Wikidata was - in my opinion - predominantly developed to work with Wikipedia. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikidata was planned as if there were only one Wikipedia, actually; its rigid one-to-one-mapping arrangement loses when presented with multiple-language Wikipedias that don't analyze the world quite the same way. However, for the long run, I have hoped to solve the general problem of providing Wikibooks targets for incoming sister links —which would be a problem even without Wikidata— by introducing a whole new set of categories here for potentially-per-page topical categorization.  The first problem that had to be solved was that we already had, at that point, two different kinds of categories that would get confused with each other, and this would be introducing yet a third kind of category.  I'm now several years in to, and mostly but not yet entirely finished with, an overhaul of our entire existing category hierarchy, in preparation for introducing a third set of categories that would provide suitable unique targets for encyclopedia-like topical categories.  Cf. Reading room/Proposals Wikibooks Stacks/History. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see Wikidata wrongly disparaged in this way; it was neither "predominantly developed to work with Wikipedia" nor "planned as if there were only one Wikipedia". Wikidata is perfectly capable of representing the concepts on Wikibooks (just as it does for other non-Wikipedia sister projects); you can have a Wikidata item corresponding to "Cookbook:Cucumber" and another corresponding to "Horticulture/Cucumber", if you wish. My question is more about whether there is, or should be, a Wikibooks page representing the general subject of "Cucumber", in the sense encompassing not only cookery and horticulture, but also biology, representations art, and any other aspect. Pigsonthewing (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Seems to me you may be somewhat hasty in supposing that "wrongly disparaged" thing. Despite widespread good will and competence of Wikidatans (in my experience), there are some structural design flaws in Wikidata, which can be traced back to structural bias that flows from the Wikimedia Foundation through the vehicle of Conway's law.  (That is, design by a top-down centralized organization will favor top-down centralization, which is often profoundly inappropriate for an inherently distributed bottom-up volunteer community.) Notably, the function of Wikidata toward other projects is apparently based on naive assumptions that (1) information is structured in a unique, unambiguous way, and (2) interwiki links should be limited to perfect matches in this unique structure.  Neither of which is true.  The structure is not at all unique, consequently its organization ought not be entrusted to the POV of a single central project (a particular instance of the general damage to voluteer projects caused by wresting local control away from them); and interwikis are an important social (only partly, and flexibly, ontological) connection between projects that should be maximized and cannot be properly judged by mechanical/objective means, so here again it is inappropriate to relegate their control to the POV of a single central project.  Granted a single central project can be valuable in aiding coordination of other projects, though that is not, alas, the function baked into Wikidata's technical design.  Just for example: on English Wikinews, we have a category called "free speech"; and iirc there may be one or two other-language Wikinewses that have such a category; but several Wikinewses have instead a category whose name would translate as "censorship" (interesting optimism/pessimism interplay there), and I think when I delved into this a few years ago I may have found one or two Wikinewses that managed to find some yet-different approach to the subject.  Freedom of speech is definitely not the same thing as censorship, and although these categories would likely apply to many of the same news articles, they might occasionally lead to different categorization decisions; nevertheless, if these categories did not have interwiki links to each other it would be a disservice both to readers/researchers and to the social well-being of the Wikinewses involved; and Wikidata's organization pretty-much guarantees they will not be linked to each other.  That's a flaw in the design of Wikidata.  (Yes, I see how it's possible to fix, even now, with some time and effort; but it's not easy, nor quick, to effect a large-scale fix to a problem people don't want to acknowledge.)  I have occasionally see, though cannot alas readily produce an example of, some simple cases of the same phenomenon arising on Wikipedias. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Should there not be a higher level 'Cucumber' page, which is paired with sister projects? Pigsonthewing (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer to this is distributed through some of the earlier remarks.
 * We wouldn't call it "Cucumber".
 * Eventually, I hope, we'll have infrastructure in place so that the page you're asking about would be called . I have been moving toward a solution of this sort for several years now, but am not yet there.  Not sure yet what <some prefix> would be; we have a prefix   for the category tracking all pages associated with a book, and   for the category tracking all the books that belong to a shelf.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Global ban RFC for Nrcprm2026/James Salsman
Nrcprm2026, better known as James Salsman, has an active discussion regarding a possible global ban.--GZWDer (discuss • contribs) 07:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki of functions naming contest
. Please help pick a name for the new Wikimedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki where the community can work together on a library of functions. The community can create new functions, read about them, discuss them, and share them. Some of these functions will be used to help create language-independent Wikipedia articles that can be displayed in any language, as part of the Abstract Wikipedia project. But functions will also be usable in many other situations.

There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with voting beginning on 29 September and 27 October. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on 8 December. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. --Quiddity (WMF) 21:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

book idea (cell microprocessor)
I want to read an up to date book on cell microprocessors developed by IBM and Sony. I want to learn about them but the available information is very scattered. thank you for reading my post 152.27.19.213 (discuss) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Vocabulary practice app for foreign language learning
I've set up a working prototype of a foreign language vocabulary practice web app. The idea is to offer an easy way for users to practice foreign language vocabulary, using vocabulary lists from Wikibooks. The app depends on the vocabq template I set up, which displays a vocabulary table and optionally links to the app. You can see it by going to the end of Polish/Adjectives where it links to practice these translations. My intention is to make this an open source project, possibly by publishing the source code on github, and hopefully welcome pull requests, but I could use advice about how to deal with licensing and related issues. Should it be GPL v2-or-later so it matches the license used by MediaWiki? Is it relevant that my current prototype is built in React? Is this the right place to be asking these kind of questions? Thanks for any advice. Krubo (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend anyone but your help documentation sucks.
Guys and Gals, I am a retired computer programmer. I programmed real-time embedded OS utilities for 35+ years in many languages and environments. I feel I am quite capable of picking up a new environment. I've been seriously trying to use Wikibooks for a couple weeks now. I don't mean to offend anyone but wikibooks help documentation sucks. There is no (or none I can't find) single place to go to to find the nuts and bolts of writing a page. Yes, there is a lot on planning a book and accompanying policies but no pointer to finding basic nitty gritty of how to do stuff. The current instance that is frustrating me is I want to limit the number of heading levels that the TOC displays. What is the syntax? I know I have seen it in my poking around. If I do a search on "Table of Contents" I get a message that tells me I can't create that page (thank you very much). (Searching sucks also.) The info I need is not (that I can find) referenced within 2 level of an intro page. A link to all the help should be at the very top level. Instead it is just a glitzy page with pointer to high level stuff or cursory introductory material. If I am frustrated imagine what someone with no computer background feels. I shouldn't have to go to the reading room and ask for help on something that should be in a document that is obvious. If you want to attract users your interface is going to have to get a lot more friendly. This has to be fixed. If the info is there then make the path to it obvious. If it is not available then it needs to be created. I am willing to help. In fact, I have already started. See my user page. But I am getting very frustrated trying to write that, too. If you happen to know where the documentation for the TOC is then that would be great to know but that is not what I am asking for. I would like some changes that would make this a friendly useable environment. --Eddiem0710 (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I apologize if I did offend anyone. I really did not mean to. I am quite sincere when I say I would really like to see this site thrive. I think it is or could be important. I'm going now to do my afternoon meditation and see if I can calm down.  I'll check back later for comments. --Eddiem0710 (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Entirely non-judgmentally: in practice, for technical details of wikis I generally look at the documentation on Wikipedia. I had no idea there was a way to limit the depth of a TOC; generally, on Wikibooks, if a page has that deep a TOC the page should be broken up into sub-pages. There is a template for the purpose on Wikipedia, which has never been imported here and, I suspect, we might be better off not importing so as not to encourage that sort of thing. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The syntax to do so is  where x is the TOC limit. e.g.   would show   but hide  . See also w:Help:Section.
 * For technical matters I wrote w:Template:Wikipedia technical help which is pretty good for finding advanced technical matters on Wikipedia. The equivalent for Wikibooks is Template:Wikibooks editor navigation, but the info in general is not as advanced, but more specific. See also Template:Wikibooks policies and guidelines for Wikibooks rules. Also the site MediaWiki has a ton of technical info if you can find it, e.g. mw:Manual:Table of contents. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that’s what I needed but it begs the question of how do we make the info readily available in Wikibooks. Once again, I apologize for the tirade but I just lost it after searching for an hour and a half. Finding something like this should be rather trivial. —-Eddiem0710 (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello Eddie, I've also encountered some difficulties finding help documents. Some confusion can be avoided by eliminating duplication. For example the front help page, https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Contents, has two links for editing: "Editing" and "Editing Wikitext". Harmless for an experienced user. A novice must think "which will help with ... ?" One link for editing is enough?
 * As Pi zero remarked above, the documentation in Wikipedia can be advantageous. I wonder about consolidating documentation across the projects. Links in each project are OK but can the documentation be centralized?
 * Incidentally, probably you meant "invokes the question" rather than "begs the question". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. Question begging is done by lazy or weak students in maths and philosophy courses. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 03:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are exactly, formally correct. However, I used the phrase correctly in the vernacular sense. Not being able to find the correct info easily invokes/begs the question of why it is hard to find. (In my opinion (which really makes no difference) correct language usage must follow the usage in the society. Language is alive and changing.  The French are wasting their time trying to control the correct usage of their language. But that’s their business.) I don’t think the problem is that there are too many links to the information (though that may be a problem also) but that there are no readily available links to the information. Either way, if a new user becomes frustrated he/she (or whatever the correct usage is) is not going to stick around and this site will die a slow death. That is the real point.
 * I don’t get the impression that there are a lot of users here. I don’t see anyone asking question even though the documentation I read leaves me with a lot. I didn’t used to be dumb. I think there needs to be a formal movement to fix it. Or, I could be shown I’m wrong, in which case, I’ll shut up and tow the line. —-Eddiem0710 (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I could be shown I’m wrong, in which case, I’ll shut up and tow the line. Well i don't think you're probably wrong, the help situation with regard to technical matters could probably be improved. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that the solution would not to put more technical stuff here. My grand plan for a technical help utopia would probably be along the following: Now obviously the big flaw in this plan would be the amount of work to do this: even a single page would likely take many hours of work to truly expand it in this way. So it might be a "pipe dream", but I feel it would probably be the best solution. The main questions are how many would agree with me, and would anyone want to do all the work. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) There should be a central technical help depository. For me, having separate technical help projects for the English-language WMF projects (i.e. English Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) is a bit of a waste. That's because almost all technical aspects are the same for all the projects. Now the big difference is that there is huge differences in template and module use between projects. But if you exclude this, technically contributing to these projects is mostly the same, barring some configuration differences. Technical aspects you learn about one project can mostly be exported to other projects.
 * 2) Now where should this be held? For me the obvious place would be MediaWiki. Now I feel this would  be the best place as it is project agnostic. Now it does sort of cover most technical aspects, but unfortunately I feel many of the pages there need updating and expanding, they don't always cover subjects in enough depth. An example of this would be mw:Manual:Table of contents versus w:Help:Section, they cover roughly the same area but the en.wp has much more info.
 * 3) This would then restrict technical help pages on projects to the basics, but also importantly template and module usage, as well as configuration differences. If everyone used the MediaWiki site there wouldn't be much need for anything beyond this. Things like policies and guidelines would also need to covered separately.
 * An all inclusive solution would be ideal. But getting other projects to update their help because ours is poor may be a problem unless there is some overarching Wiki leadership that can push it. I was looking for a Wikibooks comprehensive solution but would settle for a single very visible page that had a list of help pages in this or other projects that covers all the info. That would go a long way to solving the problem. I think users can understand that the projects are different and stuff goes out of date but just not finding anything is unacceptable; a newbie certainly does not know that looking on another site is possible. I can’t even figure out how to filter searches on this site to just look for help info; i.e., I haven’t seen search help either. —-Eddiem0710 (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Help pages for search are at Help:Navigating or w:Help:Searching. Basically you click on the 🔍 icon in the top right hand corner of each page, and then select the "search in" namespaces that you want, for help pages they would typically be in the "Help:" or "Wikibooks:" namespaces.
 * I think the idea of having a general directory for technical help would be a good idea, maybe I'll look into writing one. At the moment the WB:FAQ, may be useful, espcially the Help:FAQ/Editing page. And don't forget to look at the links at Template:Wikibooks editor navigation. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ... how many would agree with me, ...
 * That's the right way.
 * ... would anyone want to do all the work ...
 * I can't do all the work but can do some. With the Oberon book I take the initiative. A few can be relied upon for help. I email "Hello X, please have a look at such and such. If it needs correction please go ahead or please reply. ..." When the right person is asked, progress occurs.
 * For "help", develop one page at a time in MediaWiki. When it is ready, create appropriate links to it. Then delete redundant help pages elsewhere. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

page restricted to administrators help
Hi, I have a student attempting to complete an assignment. Based on this page: Exercise_as_it_relates_to_Disease/Improving_executive_functions_in_children_with_autism_spectrum_disorder_through_mixed_martial_arts. When the student goes to "start" the page the error message comes up:

''The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the administrative assistance reading room. You may also contact any administrator on their discussion page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, a page with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.''

I am not sure why this would come up - I can't see why it would be blacklisted, they are just writing a critique of a research article about an exercise intervention and autism. Are we able to clear that?

Thanks --Benrattray (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I've created the page. I'd guess that at some time or other we had a problem with spam about autism "cures", and a blacklist entry was created that the pagename triggered. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Awesome, many thanks. Understandable.

--Benrattray (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/History/History of Film Studies

Hello! Your article is really well written and very interesting. Maybe you could just improve your references. I used this website https://www.citethisforme.com to do them and it helped me a lot!--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/History/History of History

Hello! I love History and I was very interested in your article. Yesterday I read an article on the future of the discipline and in particular the threats it faces and I thought I could send you the link: https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2012/the-future-of-the-profession. If you are interested, maybe you could add a few lines to your article on the subject!--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence/Evidence in Politics

Hello! Just a little advice: separating the references from the rest of your article will surely improve the presentation of your article. Otherwise, the content is very interesting!--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Ella juli/sandbox

Ella juli

title: User:Ella juli/sandbox


text:
User talk:Salo1sc

Welcome, Salo1sc!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Salo1sc


text:
User:CalciumTetraoxide

Hi, I'm CalciumTetraoxide. I was born in Taiwan in 2003 and moved to California in 2020. I want to express my thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation by trying my best to contribute. Currently, I am editing the book Calculus. I'm still getting the hang of the source codes, but eventually I'll branch out to different books.

title: User:CalciumTetraoxide


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence/Evidence in International Relations

= Evidence in International Relations =

Introduction
The methodologies involved in the discipline of international relations is known to be comparatively diverse to other disciplines in the social sciences. This can be attributed to the fact that international relations only became a separate discipline during the inter-war period, and is interdisciplinary by nature, combining the preexisting thoughts from politics, economics, geography, law, philosophy, sociology, and other relevant disciplines.

Empirical data and theories
The study on international relations as a discipline (IR) places a strong focus on theories such as realism, liberalism, Marxist theory, constructivism, English school, feminism etc. The construction of non-normative theories in the discipline is heavily supported empirical evidence, which is perceived through social and political observation and experimentation. These theories base their concerns on analysing the patterns of events that are past/exist in world politics, with the most notable one being realism, which is also considered the founding theory of international relations. On the other hand, non-normative IR theories employs ethnical, normative judgements in its creation of an ideal world state, with notable examples being liberal theory and Marxist theory in international relations.

Epistemology and Evidence
The two main epistemologies in international relations, the positivist camp and the post-positivist camp, have different approaches to evidence. The methods used in the positivist analysis are heavily scientific, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, observation and experimental testing, and eliminating disproven hypotheses. General theories from realism such as the balance of power are mainly deduced from this method. As for post-positivist thoughts, the emphasis is on approaching events in subjective perspectives that places value judgement, and more centrally, ethics, in the core of developing their theories.


text:
User talk:Seckends

Welcome!
Welcome, Seckends!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seckends


text:
History of video games/Platforms/BBC Bridge Companion

History
Andrew Kambites was a programmer for the BBC Bridge Companion, and also programed the otherwise unrelated handheld Saitek Pro Bridge Professor.

The BBC Bridge companion was released in 1985 at a cost of 199.99 British pounds.

Technology
The BBC Bridge player uses a Z80A CPU and a TMS9129NL graphics chip. The system could output 8 colors and had spartan audio capabilities.

The system has 16 kilobytes of RAM.

Game library
Various bridge themed cartridges were released for the system.
 * Advanced Bidding
 * Advanced Defence
 * Bridge Builder
 * Club Play 1
 * Club Play 2
 * Club Play 3
 * Conventions 1
 * Duplicate 1
 * Master Play 1

External Resources

 * BBC website
 * BBC Bridge Companion page at the Video Game Console Library website
 * BBC Bridge Companion page at the Video Game Kraken website
 * BBC Bridge Companion page at the UK Centre for Computing History website


text:
History of video games/Platforms/APF TV Fun series

Background
Before making the APF TV Fun, APF made consumer electronics like calculators.

Launch
The APF TV Fun model 401 was released in 1976 for $125. The system sold very well with 400,000 first year sales, and lead APF to make more game consoles.

In February 1977, the TV Fun Model 405 was launched.

Legacy
The APF-MP1000 followed the system, featuring much better capabilities and design.

Technology
Casing tended to be shared between models of APF TV Fun. Systems were manufactured in Japan.

401
The APF model 401 uses a General Instrument AY-3-8500 chip, and takes 6 C type batteries. A CD4071 chip handles video output on the APF model 401.

402
The 402 also uses a General Instrument AY-3-8500 chip but has an additional General Instrument AY-3-8515 chip to add color graphics capability to the system.

Notable games

 * Handball
 * Squash
 * Baseball
 * Hockey
 * Soccer

The APF TV Fun 402 supported two light gun games.

External Resources

 * Old Computers - APF TV Fun 401.
 * Pong Museum - APF TV Fun 401.


text:
User talk:Oliveoilandgarlic

Hi, I agree with you! We should do maybe an order that has some sense for example: The article on 'Consciousness' before the 'Study of Dreams'. We could put the 'Evidence in Neurology' after these two previous ones as they support it with more informations? Tell me what you think! --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oliveoilandgarlic


text:
User talk:Qenalcu

Hi, I moved your reply into the evidence discussion page so that everyone can be involved, I hope you dont mind! --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qenalcu


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth/Theories of Truth

Hello! It's not very important but I have a little advice for presentation: maybe you could separate your references from the rest of your article to make it clearer.--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I have corrected it to make it more clear.

Hi, I've found your page really interesting and enjoyed learning about the different types of truths! As a minor point, maybe you could talk about specific disciplinary applications of each one? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think it can also be interesting to learn about the redundancy theory of truth. In the redundancy theory saying that a declaration is true is the same as saying the statement itself. Namely, what someone is saying is necessarily true. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Inorganic-Yogi

Welcome!
Welcome, Inorganic-Yogi!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Inorganic-Yogi


text:
User:Nyloen

Insights about the education in the new normal

￼

I am a student who is very passionate in my studies especially when I'm in school but now when this pandemic dominated the country and the world, I am very sad that the thing that I am passionate is not delivered to me with quality. Education in the new normal is very hard for me and for my fellow students. There are no teachers teaching us and we have many activities that we need to do but I think for me, this will help me in improving my knowledge and my thinking skills about the lessons offered by new normal education. I believe that if I will do my best to educate myself, it is very nice so that I can be independent all the time.

title: User:Nyloen


text:
Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Major Events/Order of the Phoenix

im reading deathly hallows


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 9/Truth

Truth in Criminal Law section
I've been adding to my section on ruth in criminal law, but have been struggling to get my head around the concept of truth and how the different theories can be applied. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, please feel free to let me know or make any changes necessary. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I added Inquisitorialism - truth doesn't necessarily apply in UK courts, more if you win, or not. So there is a concept in European countries that tries to get around this. I hope you don't mind.

 * Thank you, I had a read through and it's a really great addition. I didn't want to make it too broad by including other countries, but I think you're right and it makes sense to see the comparison and other ways truth can be defined. Thanks again! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Perhaps a case study on jury nullification? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * In addition to these strong suggestions, I was considering the role of the Pragmatist theories of truth in this legal context. Might this apply as court cases are subject to revision if enough substantive evidence can be provided? In other words, as with Peirce's slogan "Truth is the end of inquiry," a case may be closed as a verdict has been reached with all currently available information. This verdict remains "true" until there is evidence to counter the verdict at a later date. Thoughts from other contributors are greatly appreciated. Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * These are all really interesting suggestions, thank you! I'm slightly worried about losing the clear focus and conciseness of the section, but you all raise really good points. I'll have a think about how I can integrate these ideas wtihout making the section too lengthy, but please feel free to make your own adjustments and edits if you would like to! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I've decided not to add any more content to the section as I think there's a big risk of it becoming too broad and not concise, as it's already much longer than I had initially intended. Although please do make any more suggestions if you'd like to. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Citing The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
I plan to incorporate work from the SEP for this entry on truth and am having trouble going about accurately citing this source. As its a dynamic encyclopedia, it's proving quite difficult to find all the most recent information for citation purposes. Any suggestions would be sincerely welcomed.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As an update, I've found that another contributor has referenced the SEP and would be curious to know how we go about consolidating our citations in order to maintain the Vancouver format. I attempted to use the SEP citation from the "Truth in Theology" section, but was unable to transfer the reference. Any help in this pursuit would be much appreciated.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Number Citations
I've been trying to research whether or not a space is needed before the in-line number citation, but I can't seem to find any definitive answer. I was wondering if anyone knew? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 05:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Not sure if I fully understand your question, but I think the general order is: punctuation (comma, full stop) > reference > space. i.e: "The quick brown fox,[1] jumped over the lazy dog.[2] And then...." --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That makes perfect sense - thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Economics
I just added a quote from Taleb because he had and still has such influence over economic thought.

That said, I am looking for a more uptodate reference point to bring the article into the present day. I hope this is ok. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's great, thank you so much! I have just tweaked the section slightly to better fit the overall discussion. I think it fits quite well with the points made earlier, and while the book was published in 2007, it has a lot of relevant points, as you have already highlighted in your contribution. - Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Theology
There's so much to say on this subject so I have a hard time structuring my paragraph... I am open to your suggestions ! A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's true, there really is a lot to say on this topic! It might be using some key phrases in terms of truth, for example talking about theological realism? I'll do a bit more research and see if there's any extra information I could add to your section, if that's okay with you. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I find theological realism very interesting, but I cannot see the link with truth... Feel free to write a few sentences about it if you want!A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It's not a topic I know too much about, but I just found it interesting how religious realism is based on what is seen to be 'true' in that religion, and the truth claims made about the God in question. Maybe my interpretation of truth is slightly different, but I'll see if I can find a way to write a bit about it without confusing your section! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it's worth noting the different kind of truths within the bible, since there is a large variety of different interpretations and forms of truth that can be extrapolated from it Triple zero one (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Indeed, it is interesting. Thank you for your feedback.--A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish we had more space and time. The threat of the truth behind faith in theology and therefore religion has caused so much unrest throughout history and it is an area I would like to explore - how do you differentiate between faith and truth in religion? Is it true? Does it have to be? I will try and add a little to this topic. Is that ok? Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added some extra ideas into the theology part, mostly about evidentialism Triple zero one (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added some external links, nothing much. This discipline is fasciating June1965parias (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Art / Western Canon
I have come to a point in my section where I can't really add much more to it without dramatically increasing the scope of what I'm writing about, and I'm worried then that the point of the mini-essay will be muddied. Any ideas would be much appreciated. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think what you've written is really good quality and concise. I personally wouldn't add anymore to it or I think you're at risk of, like you said, increasing the scope too much. Maybe you could add a short conclusion to sum everything up and summarise briefly the role of truth in Art/Western Canon? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Art 2
There's a second section on truth in art which I believe has greater capacity for scope expansion than mine. I have very surface level knowledge of Jean Baudrillard's concepts of hyperreality and simulacra, and I believe this is a perfect addition to the list of philosophical truth in art.

However, as seems to be a running theme with my run-ins with postmodern philosophy, the work (and analyses of his work) is far too dense and referential to prior philosophical concepts for me to gather decent sources (my only information in relation to him is via wikipedia) which provide introductory information on his ideas. Any guidance would be much appreciated! --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Plato's understanding and critique that artists form a constructivist perspective is an interesting addition to this topic. Art is subjective and therefore true to whom? Really interesting to read about. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes completely !! That's why I found it interesting to compare Heidegger's and Plato's perceptions of truth Velma1234567 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Velma1234567

Standardising Layout
Hiya! Just made a little edit removing bolds from subtitles to standardise overall layout.

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in Literature
Hi just to let you know that arranged some of your sources :) !! Velma1234567 (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Velma1234567


text:
User talk:83.9.213.61

Warning
—Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:83.9.213.61