Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Zeno's paradoxes

/Archive 1

On the subject of reliable Reliable Sources

[This content is a copy of the section on the Zeno's Paradoxes Talk Page]

'Shifting deckchairs on the Titanic' is perhaps an apt metaphor for some of the discussion on this Talk page regarding Zeno's Paradoxes.

Zeno's Paradoxes, despite claims to the contrary is first and foremost about the inquiry (historically, by Zeno of Elea) into the actual detail of how things (arrows, runners et al) move.

We can confidently expect that any discussion, or contribution that is not centred on the detail of the movement of physical things, is doomed to sink into irrelevance.

Any so-called Reliable Sources who DOES NOT explain or cover how things move, in the minutia, and how that description of movement is correlated with fact, can be deemed 'unreliable'.

If anyone reading this page can explain how any such "Reliable' Source should be deemed reliable when that contribution does not correlate theory with fact, please present arguments here.

This in effect is asking editors to explain why we should ignore or reject good scientific/journalistic principles (i.e. the scientific method), and simple 'common sense'.

Is it common sense to talk about theories of physical movement when those theories cannot be substantiated by the observation of actual physical movement? Moreover, does it follow good scientific principles to believe some theory (physical continuity of movement) when that theory flies in the face of experimental data (that in the minutia, 'movement is discontinuous')?

In conclusion, if the Reliable Source does not correlate or in some manner substantiate theory with observable fact, I propose that it deemed 'unreliable' and therefore rejected.

However, this does not disallow 'Reliable Sources' who comment on the historical beliefs concerning this subject, and can include references to any and all mathematical theories that purport to 'solve' the paradoxes. But the preface to any such inclusion is the "mathematicians believed" ... and with the postscript "but those theories were not and have not been substantiated in fact."

Some example of phrases and sentences that therefore need to be reworked or deleted entirely, include:

1. "Zeno's paradoxes were a major problem for ancient and medieval philosophers. More modern calculus has solved the mathematical aspects of the paradox". Where is the evidence that modern calculus solves the paradox of movement? What experimental data that includes movement through all increments can be reliably sourced for this statement?
3. more soon

Steaphen (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Closure?

Steaphen, one of the three parties to this mediation, was blocked indefinitely by SarekOfVulcan three weeks ago. Perhaps it is time to close this RfM? NW (Talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)