Timwi wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Where is the contradiction exactly? Metaphysical semantics?
No, logic. Adding rigour:
Suppose the hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Then there would be no discussion about it. Yet AfD as well as assorted talk pages are filled with endless such discussions. Therefore, the hypothesis is false. QED.
Well, I know that the hypothesis is false at present, because we haven't agreed that the terms outlined should be binding. How about in the future? If overnight the it was agreed that "The critera for whether we an article should stay or not is that it satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]]", would the hypothesis then be true?
The hypothesis was that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP".
This hypothesis is true only if *both* | (A) "Everything that satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] should be in WP" *and* | (B) "Everything that fails either [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] should not be in WP" are true.
I agree.
Find something which fails one of them and everyone agrees we should have an article on, and you have disproved the hypothesis.
Yes, because this disproves subhypothesis B.
Alternatively, find something which *doesn't* fail *any* of the two, and yet *not* everyone agrees we should have an article on it, and you have also disproved the hypothesis (by disproving subhypothesis A). Examples for this exist en masse.
That's because we haven't tried it yet. Take a snapshot, go through and remove everything which violates [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] (and include everything which meets both) and tell me what you have. Then we will see if the hypothesis is true or not.