On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Surreptitiousness
<
surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
Fiction is a very broad term. fictions can be
used for rhetorical
purposes in serious discourse--fictional examples are a mainstay of
philosophical argument, dating back to Plato's cave, if not earlier.
For this hypothetical animal, I do not think there will be any
difficulty finding a citation that says that it is a fiction.
The point I am making is more that this is a dangerous path we are on.
I would have no difficulty providing a source that Santa Claus or God
etc are a fiction. However, given that Schrödinger's cat is categorised
in Category:Thought experiments, what does Category:Fictional cats add
to the article, and should string theory or string (physics) therefore
be categorised in Category:Fictional science? I think we need to be
very careful what we categorise when it comes to fiction, and what we
are mixing up in our categories which categorise things which are
fictive and things which are theoretical. Schrödinger's cat does not
exist in a work of fiction, it exists, as you say, in a theroetical
argument, which is different from a work of fiction. Another good
example is Higgs bosun, or whatever it is that big collider can't find.
Mind you, I notice The Lady, or the Tiger? is in Category:Fictional
tigers, although not in Category:Fictional females, which implies there
are even more flaws in the system.Especially when The Monkey and the
Hunter avoids both Category:Fictional monkeys and Category:Fictional
hunters. Hope I've better outlined the issue as I see it.
I think you make a persuasive argument that Schroedinger's Cat should not be
in Category:Fictional cats. Therefore, I advise you to remove that category
from the article.
There isn't much else to say about this besides {{sofixit}}.
- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: