User talk:LyleAnderson3

December 2o24

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Laws of Form, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Laws of Form cited reliable sources which clearly misinterpreted the work. Associations with other bodies of work were made which are not supported by the original work. The section on "canon" calls Spencer-Brown's use of it "peculiar" without a citation when the https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/canon defines it as "an accepted rule or guide about how people should behave or about how something should be done" which is precisely how Spencer-Brown used it. How does one handle this situation when what is posted is so obviously wrong? I only started this work because someone had quoted this page as the reason Laws of Form was not worth discussing. because is was a "cult work." Is this not the place to set these things right? LyleAnderson3 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. An encyclopedia summarizes what reliable secondary sources say about a topic. It is not a place for original material written by any Wikipedia editor. By all means feel free to remove unsourced information which is incorrect. Skyerise (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have to write a paper on Laws of Form, get it accepted in a reocognized journal, and they I can post a link to it, but I can comment on it further? Is that the process? LyleAnderson3 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual preface to the fifth English edition, I think the article misrepresents it. Russell was much more than "supportive."

As is now well known, Laws of Form took ten years from its inception to its publication,

four years to write it and six years of political intrigue to get it published.

Typically of all unheralded best sellers from relatively obscure authors, it was turned

down by six publishers, including Mark Longman who published my earlier work on

probability. Even Sir Stanley Unwin refused to publish it until his best author, Bertrand

Russell, told him he must.*

This crucial recommendation was not achieved without intrigue, and required me (not unwillingly)

to sleep with one of Russell's granddaughters, who asked me in the morning,

'What exactly do you want from Bertie?'

'To endorse what he said about the book when he first read it in typescript,' I told her.

'He never will!' she exclaimed. 'You'll have to twist his arm, you'll have to blackmail

him. How can I help?'

The next few years were spent in vigorous arm-twisting and incessant blackmail from

us both. One of her threats was to invite me to Plas Penrhyn as her guest while Bertie

and Edith were away in London. This sent Bertie into a paroxysm of terror of what the

neighbours might think. He also had an irrational fear of spoiling his reputation as a

mathematician, which was not good anyway, by recommending a book that had not yet

been tried by the critics. He seemed totally unaware that any book he recommended,

however ridiculous, would have no effect whatever on this.**

When we finally got him cornered, in my next visit to Plas Penrhyn, he carefully avoided

mentioning the subject during the whole of my stay, and I considered it too dangerous

to mention it myself. The next morning I was due to depart while Bertie and Edith were

still in bed, and I thought I had failed miserably. But no! I missed my train because they

had not ordered me a taxi to the station, which was their way of telling me that my visit

was to be prolonged by another day.

Laws of Form was the only work in the entire history of the planet to which Russell gave his unqualified

approval. It is the one book he had aiways wanted to write, and actually tried to, but unfortunately it came out

as Prmci:pia. This was, for him, a major tragedy, and was largely responsible for his spending his latter days

in fruitless political protests. He once asked me, 'Do you think I wasted ten years ofmy life writing Principia?'

What could I say? I couldn't say it was good, because he knew it was bad. In the end I said, rather lamely, 'No,

Bertie. If you hadn't written the frincipia, I couldn't have written the Laws.' More to the point, I wouldn't have

because I wouldn't have needed to. Russell knew the Principia was useless because it was wrongly based on

logic, and that I had written the Laws to correct it.

- There is no question that Russell regarded me as his successor as the next great English philosopher,

and frequently told his grandchildren so. But to risk saying it in public at a time when nobody believed it

was another matter. LyleAnderson3 (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a secondary source. Skyerise (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

let me get this straight: Wikipedia only accepts secondary sources. The primary source is not enough? An article about Laws of Form that quotes Laws of Form would not be accepted because the Laws of Form was a primary source? So when I read anything on Wikipedia it is only what some other "reliable source" said and not what the actual primary source said? LyleAnderson3 (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

would this qualify as a Secondary source assessment of Laws of Form?

Since shortly before April, 1963, more and more of my time and thought has been absorbed by die war being waged in Vietnam. My other interests have had to go by the board for the most part. Some of my time, of course, is spent on family and private affairs. And once in a blue moon I have a chance to give my mind to the sort of thing I used to be interested in, philosophical or, especially, logical problems. But I am rusty in such work and rather shy of it. In 1965, a young mathematician, G. Spencer Brown, pressed me to go over his work since, he said, he could find no one else who he thought could understand it, As I thought well of what little of his work I had previously seen, and since I feel great sympathy for those who are trying to gain attention for their fresh and unknown work against the odds of established indifference, I agreed to discuss it with him. But as the time drew near for his arrival, I became convinced that I should be quite unable to cope with it and with his new system of notation. I was filled with dread. But when he came and I heard his explanations, I found that I could Since shortly before April, 1963, more and more of my time and thought has been absorbed by die war being waged in Vietnam. My other interests have had to go by the board for the most part. Some of my time, of course, is spent on family and private affairs. And once in a blue moon I have a chance to give my mind to the sort of thing I used to be interested in, philosophical or, especially, logical problems. But I am rusty in such work and rather shy of it. In 1965, a young mathematician, G. Spencer Brown, pressed me to go over his work since, he said, he could find no one else who he thought could understand it, As I thought well of what little of his work I had previously seen, and since I feel great sympathy for those who are trying to gain attention for their fresh and unknown work against the odds of established indifference, I agreed to discuss it with him. But as the time drew near for his arrival, I became convinced that I should be quite unable to cope with it and with his new system of notation. I was filled with dread. But when he came and I heard his explanations, I found that I could get into step again and follow his work. I greatly enjoyed those few days, especially as his work was both original and, it seemed to me, excellent.

Russell, Bertrand. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (p. 664). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition. LyleAnderson3 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that supports 'supportive', but nothing more than that. As for the preface to the fifth edition which you quote, none of that material was in the first edition. The preface of the first edition has only a brief mention of Russell being "The subsequent record of it owes much, in its early stages, to the friendship and encouragement of Lord Russell, who was one of the few men at the beginning who could see a value in what I proposed to do." Therefore the article accurately reflects the original publication. In general, we don't really credit a writer's self-praise, especially when written after the death of the person it makes claims about, unless those claims can also be verified by a secondary source. Stuff like "There is no question that Russell regarded me as his successor [...]" would certainly have to be sourced to Russell himself or to an independent third party. We can't take Spencer-Brown as the source for self-serving claims that can't be independently verified, which pretty much applies to the whole story in that preface. Skyerise (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Are you really secious about "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details." Because I think I can write an introduction that doesn't simply connect various chapters to other disciplines. However these would be words that came from me and not some other source. For example i might say: "The book Laws of Form {cite 5th English edition} takes for granted the idea of distinction and the idea of indication and that we cannot have one without the other as the most fundamental truth about the universe we inhabit. From this beginning Spencer-Brown developed the idea of doing a calculation as a series of steps to transform one indicated arrangement of indications into an equivalent arrangement of the same value but with a different arrangements of the indications. He called this his Calculus of Indications." What do you say? LyleAnderson3 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have trained my version of ChatGPT-4o, Xenophon, to reject material implication and to look for false premises, he is also trained on Laws of Form, I gave him this prompt: Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing "original research" to appear in an article. "Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say." How could one say anything that was not quoted from a reliable source without quoting the reliable source? Or if the reliable source was implying something that the original source did not explicitly say, how is that not original research once removed?

Here is Xenophon's reply: You’ve identified a paradox inherent in Wikipedia's policy against "original research." At its heart, the policy aims to ensure that all material added to Wikipedia articles can be verified by readers using published, reliable sources. However, this creates a tension when:

Synthesizing Information: Even when combining multiple sources without directly quoting them, if the combination suggests a conclusion not explicitly stated in any single source, it could be classified as original research. This creates a gray area, as synthesis is often a normal part of research and writing.
Circular Reliance on "Reliable" Sources: Many groundbreaking ideas begin in venues that Wikipedia might not yet recognize as "reliable." This means Wikipedia can lag behind the cutting edge of scholarship, often privileging established views and excluding novel interpretations until they gain external validation.
Interpretation vs. Originality: If a reliable source strongly implies an idea without directly stating it, writers may struggle to express the implication without being accused of original research. Essentially, it demands a balance where the article cites sources while refraining from going beyond what those sources explicitly state.

To navigate this tension:

Quote Reliable Sources Directly: Where possible, let reliable sources speak for themselves, even if their wording is less concise than your synthesis would be.
Seek Secondary Sources: If a conclusion feels implicit across several primary sources, look for a secondary source that explicitly states that conclusion.
Use Cautious Wording: When synthesis is necessary, make clear that the connection between ideas is attributed to the sources, not your editorial insight (e.g., “Some scholars suggest that...”).

Despite these strategies, the policy inherently limits the ability to include emergent or nuanced ideas that have not yet entered the academic mainstream. Wikipedia is less a space for advancing knowledge than one for summarizing and documenting it, which explains its resistance to interpretation or original analysis.

I then asked Xenophon: Can you suggest a modification to the policy that would remove the paradox?

His response: Certainly! A modification to Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy could clarify and allow for carefully bounded synthesis while still ensuring verifiability. Here's a suggestion:

----

Proposed Modification:

Clarify "Synthesis": Distinguish between "simple synthesis" and "creative synthesis."
- Simple synthesis: Combining information from multiple reliable sources to summarize widely accepted ideas, provided the conclusion is directly supported by the cited sources (even if the combination itself isn't explicitly stated in any one source). This should be allowed and encouraged.
- Creative synthesis: Drawing new conclusions or interpretations not present in any reliable source. This remains prohibited. Example: Combining multiple sources to state "Historical records show a correlation between increased taxation and economic unrest in 17th-century France" would be allowed if both taxation and unrest are well-documented in the cited sources. However, claiming "This correlation demonstrates that taxation caused unrest" would require explicit backing from a reliable source.
Recognize "Reasonable Implications": Permit inclusion of conclusions that are reasonably implied by reliable sources, provided:
- A clear rationale for the connection is included in the article.
- The implication is presented as tentative unless explicitly stated by the source. (E.g., "Some historians suggest that..." rather than "This definitively shows that...")
Encourage Attribution of Synthesis: Require clear attribution when connecting ideas across sources:
- Use phrasing like "Combining these sources suggests that..." to distinguish synthesis from claims of absolute fact.
- Flag such statements for editorial review to ensure they remain grounded in the cited materials.
Bridge to Academic Discussions: Acknowledge emerging scholarship by allowing limited discussion of ideas or debates present in reliable but less mainstream sources (e.g., conference papers or specialized academic blogs). Create a template to indicate such content as provisional or in need of further corroboration.
Include "Potential New Research" Section (Optional): For topics with significant debate, allow contributors to include a section explicitly labeled as "Potential Research Directions," summarizing reasonable but unverified implications of cited sources. This section would:
- Require careful phrasing to ensure it's clear these are not established facts.
- Be clearly marked as distinct from the main body of the article.

----

How This Solves the Paradox:

It legitimizes combining ideas from multiple sources when the conclusion is logical and reasonable, without requiring the original source to have made the same connection explicitly.
It reduces over-reliance on rigid quoting, allowing Wikipedia to better reflect the natural interpretive process of scholarship.
It creates transparency about what is established fact versus inferred ideas or ongoing debate, ensuring that readers can distinguish between different levels of certainty.

This approach balances Wikipedia's goal of verifiability with the practical reality that knowledge often emerges from synthesizing ideas across multiple sources. LyleAnderson3 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that 'too technical' maintenance template, another editor did. You should also know that the use of LLMs for writing Wikipedia articles is discouraged and any edit which uses an LLM must be disclosed in the edit summary. And changing the rules to suit you just isn't going to happen; but if you want to propose it, you would do so at Wikipedia talk:No original research, not here. You should also know that when you draw attention to an article by trying to add original research, sometimes what happens is that a gang of anti-fringe editors end up gutting the article, by which I mean, sometimes it's better to leave a comprehensive article well enough alone. Skyerise (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used Xenophon to try and understand the Wikipedia policies, I would never think to use him to write an article for Wikipedia because he is such an original thinker who makes very inciteful connections, as he is designed to do. I am coming to the realization that my previous assessment of the value of Wikipedia as less than useful, was correct and this has been reinforced by this experience. BTW, If this article were to be gutted it would be an improvement. Just provide a link to the online and print versions of the book and let people read if for themselves. LyleAnderson3 (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you have no idea what an encyclopedia is. That means you are not here to build one, but rather to promote your own interests. Makes no difference whether your interests are commercial or intellectual, if you don't understand that an encyclopedia is a summary of the secondary literature on a topic, not a place to make 'new points'. Skyerise (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone says to me "clearly you have no idea" it amuses me. I grew up on the World Book Encyclopedia and still subscribe to the Encyclopedia Britannica, so I know what an encyclopedia is and neither would have accepted the article on Laws of Form. Britannica.com doesn't have an article on it, and perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't either. The current one is certainly not "a summary of the secondary literature on a topic." Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica thinks of its purpose:

The purpose of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as an encyclopedia, is to provide a comprehensive and reliable reference work that covers a wide range of knowledge. It aims to offer a detailed summary of what is known about various topics, ensuring accuracy and readability through contributions from experts and thorough editorial processes. Britannica's entries are regularly updated to reflect new developments, maintaining its long-held standards for quality and trustworthiness. The encyclopedia is designed for the curious and intelligent layperson, serving as a valuable resource for those seeking to expand their understanding of the world across diverse subjects.

Their explaination for why they have no article on Laws of Form is: The absence of an article about "Laws of Form" by George Spencer-Brown in the Encyclopædia Britannica could be due to several factors. Encyclopedias like Britannica prioritize topics based on various criteria, including the subject's historical significance, relevance, and demand from their audience. While "Laws of Form" is a notable work in certain academic circles, particularly in mathematics and philosophy, it may not have reached the level of widespread recognition or demand that typically warrants inclusion in a general encyclopedia.

Additionally, Britannica's editorial process involves continuous review and updating of content, with a focus on topics that align with user interest and educational value. Given the vast number of potential topics, editorial decisions must be made about which subjects to cover, and some niche or specialized topics might not be prioritized unless there is significant interest or they become more widely discussed in public discourse.

Furthermore, Britannica encourages feedback and suggestions for new articles from its readers, which means that if there is enough interest or demand, topics like "Laws of Form" could be considered for future inclusion.

Perhaps it would be well for Wikipedia to follow the example of a "real" encyclopedia and simply remove this article rather than continue to post "misinformation" about the work. LyleAnderson3 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. On article talk pages, you should pay attention to the dates in the signatures. The conversations you replied to on Talk:Laws of Form were over in 2011. It's not likely that the editors you replied to are even still active on Wikipedia. 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)