2898: Orbital Argument - Revision history

162.158.74.49: /* Explanation */

2025-01-04T22:10:17Z

‎Explanation

162.158.186.185: /* Explanation */ corrected claim that sun orbits earth-sun barycenter, which isn’t really correct

2025-01-04T21:08:51Z

‎Explanation: corrected claim that sun orbits earth-sun barycenter, which isn’t really correct

172.69.151.204: Marked transcript complete

2024-03-13T15:18:19Z

Marked transcript complete

B for brain: /* Explanation */

2024-03-05T18:46:05Z

‎Explanation

172.69.43.253: Replied. Text output is irrelevent when it's rival concepts. Trying other wording.

2024-02-28T19:02:39Z

Replied. Text output is irrelevent when it's rival concepts. Trying other wording.

108.162.241.131: Undo revision 336066 by 172.69.194.82 (talk) NLP models are clearly relevant to text outputs and logic. Let's take further discussion on this to the talk page.

2024-02-28T17:55:38Z

Undo revision 336066 by 172.69.194.82 (talk) NLP models are clearly relevant to text outputs and logic. Let's take further discussion on this to the talk page.

172.69.194.82: NLP is not relevent to this perspective.

2024-02-28T17:49:55Z

NLP is not relevent to this perspective.

172.69.214.39: Undo revision 336063 by 172.69.194.14 (talk) (this is a valid continuum (vector). See Word2Vec and sentence embeddings, for example)

2024-02-28T17:37:29Z

Undo revision 336063 by 172.69.194.14 (talk) (this is a valid continuum (vector). See Word2Vec and sentence embeddings, for example)

172.69.194.14: Undo revision 336055 by 172.70.230.141 (talk) Lost the sense of "Thing A mutually precludes Thing; and Thing C replaces the two, is not blending". This case is not valid continuum.

2024-02-28T17:20:08Z

Undo revision 336055 by 172.70.230.141 (talk) Lost the sense of "Thing A mutually precludes Thing; and Thing C replaces the two, is not blending". *This* case is not valid continuum.

172.70.230.141: Sentence embeddings of text prediction models are often averaged in the latent space of ML models, so there's not necessarily a clear separation between symbolic and vector-based reasoning under neural models (including possibly the brain).

2024-02-28T16:15:30Z

Sentence embeddings of text prediction models are often averaged in the latent space of ML models, so there's not necessarily a clear separation between symbolic and vector-based reasoning under neural models (including possibly the brain).

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Cueball appears to be asserting a {{w|geocentric}} viewpoint, whilst Megan adheres to a {{w|heliocentric}} one, both of which are flawed descriptions of the way things are, but the latter is much closer to reality. White Hat, however, considers it {{wiktionary|politic#Adjective|politic}} to 'split the difference' and declares his intention to compromise with a 'middle' option, to try to uncritically please both parties. (Though it's probable that he may instead just equally annoy them both!)
-On a naive reading, which imagines a point of common orbit midway between the bodies, his thesis is simply wrong. However, by one way of looking at it, it happens that he is also correct. Because two bodies exert equal but opposite gravitational forces on each other, each orbits around the average location of the other, and therefore they both orbit a common center. This {{w|Barycenter (astronomy)|barycenter}} is located somewhere between the centers of mass of the two bodies; the distance of each body's center of mass from the barycenter is proportional to the other body's mass. This is most apparent in systems where the two bodies have similar masses, but it is present to an extent in all orbital pairs, even when one body is far more massive than the other. For this reason, Earth does not orbit the center of the stationary Sun as described by the heliocentric model. However, the Earth-Sun barycenter is only slightly different from the Sun's own true center, still well within the Sun. It is around this which the Sun wobbles (ignoring the effects of the other planets; Jupiter actually has the largest effect on the sun), in contrast to the way the Earth orbits around this unequally proportioned midpoint.
+On a naive reading, which imagines a point of common orbit midway between the bodies, his thesis is simply wrong. However, by one way of looking at it, it happens that he is also correct. Because two bodies exert equal but opposite gravitational forces on each other, each orbits around the average location of the other, and therefore they both orbit a common center. This {{w|Barycenter (astronomy)|barycenter}} is located somewhere between the centers of mass of the two bodies; the distance of each body's center of mass from the barycenter is proportional to the other body's mass. This is most apparent in systems where the two bodies have similar masses, but it is present to an extent in all orbital pairs, even when one body is far more massive than the other. For this reason, Earth does not orbit the center of the stationary Sun as described by the heliocentric model. However, the Earth-Sun barycenter is only slightly different from the Sun's own true center, still well within the Sun. It is around this which the Sun wobbles (ignoring the effects of the other planets; Jupiter actually has the largest effect on the Sun), in contrast to the way the Earth orbits around this unequally proportioned midpoint.
 That White Hat has worded his compromise solution in a way that (arguably) encompasses the deeper truth of the barycentric viewpoint is not treated as justifying his mediating approach. It is clearly understood, by someone who seems to understand the complexities (e.g. a {{w|Randall Munroe#NASA|NASA physicist}}) that White Hat's 'successful' conclusion is just accidental, and such a person may therefore find this vexatious. This seems to be a case of a {{w|Gettier problem}}: White Hat reaches a true statement via unjustified logic.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Cueball appears to be asserting a {{w|geocentric}} viewpoint, whilst Megan adheres to a {{w|heliocentric}} one, both of which are flawed descriptions of the way things are, but the latter is much closer to reality. White Hat, however, considers it {{wiktionary|politic#Adjective|politic}} to 'split the difference' and declares his intention to compromise with a 'middle' option, to try to uncritically please both parties. (Though it's probable that he may instead just equally annoy them both!)
-On a naive reading, which imagines a point of common orbit midway between the bodies, his thesis is simply wrong. However, by one way of looking at it, it happens that he is also correct. Because two bodies exert equal but opposite gravitational forces on each other, each orbits around the average location of the other, and therefore they both orbit a common center. This {{w|Barycenter (astronomy)|barycenter}} is located somewhere between the centers of mass of the two bodies; the distance of each body's center of mass from the barycenter is proportional to the other body's mass. This is most apparent in systems where the two bodies have similar masses, but it is present to an extent in all orbital pairs, even when one body is far more massive than the other. For this reason, Earth does not orbit the center of the stationary Sun as described by the heliocentric model. However, the Earth-Sun barycenter is only slightly different from the Sun's own true center, still well within the Sun. It is around this which the Sun wobbles, in contrast to the way the Earth orbits around this unequally proportioned midpoint.
+On a naive reading, which imagines a point of common orbit midway between the bodies, his thesis is simply wrong. However, by one way of looking at it, it happens that he is also correct. Because two bodies exert equal but opposite gravitational forces on each other, each orbits around the average location of the other, and therefore they both orbit a common center. This {{w|Barycenter (astronomy)|barycenter}} is located somewhere between the centers of mass of the two bodies; the distance of each body's center of mass from the barycenter is proportional to the other body's mass. This is most apparent in systems where the two bodies have similar masses, but it is present to an extent in all orbital pairs, even when one body is far more massive than the other. For this reason, Earth does not orbit the center of the stationary Sun as described by the heliocentric model. However, the Earth-Sun barycenter is only slightly different from the Sun's own true center, still well within the Sun. It is around this which the Sun wobbles (ignoring the effects of the other planets; Jupiter actually has the largest effect on the sun), in contrast to the way the Earth orbits around this unequally proportioned midpoint.
 That White Hat has worded his compromise solution in a way that (arguably) encompasses the deeper truth of the barycentric viewpoint is not treated as justifying his mediating approach. It is clearly understood, by someone who seems to understand the complexities (e.g. a {{w|Randall Munroe#NASA|NASA physicist}}) that White Hat's 'successful' conclusion is just accidental, and such a person may therefore find this vexatious. This seems to be a case of a {{w|Gettier problem}}: White Hat reaches a true statement via unjustified logic.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Transcript==
 :[From left to right, Cueball, White Hat and Megan standing. Cueball and Megan are arguing. Cueball is raising a finger while Megan's arms are outstretched. White Hat stands between them, both hands out in an equivocal gesture.]
 :Cueball: The sun orbits the earth!

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 5 March 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|Created by an ARGUMENTATIVE ORBITAL ELEMENT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}~~
	In this comic, [[White Hat]] is using the {{w\|Argument to moderation\|middle ground fallacy}} to try to make a compromise between the positions of [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]].		In this comic, [[White Hat]] is using the {{w\|Argument to moderation\|middle ground fallacy}} to try to make a compromise between the positions of [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]].

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 That White Hat has worded his compromise solution in a way that (arguably) encompasses the deeper truth of the barycentric viewpoint is not treated as justifying his mediating approach. It is clearly understood, by someone who seems to understand the complexities (e.g. a {{w|Randall Munroe#NASA|NASA physicist}}) that White Hat's 'successful' conclusion is just accidental, and such a person may therefore find this vexatious. This seems to be a case of a {{w|Gettier problem}}: White Hat reaches a true statement via unjustified logic.
-The title text extends the principle of the comic's astronomical viewpoint down to the correspondingly opposing 'quantum world'. For various well-studied reasons, light is often described ''either'' as particles ''or'' as waves. White Hat's approach would be to give both viewpoints equal credit and suggest a compromising middle-ground explanation. In this case, also, he would have the {{w|Wave–particle duality|correct answer}} but, in the continuing view of an increasingly exasperated witness to his chronic {{w|False balance|"half-and-half"ism}}, not through a logical proof (averaging predictions of experts is used to reliably improve the accuracy of the {{w|Ensemble learning|ensemble}}, and in {{w|consensus forecast|consensus forecasting}}, so his heuristic may have validity in some cases).
+The title text extends the principle of the comic's astronomical viewpoint down to the correspondingly opposing 'quantum world'. For various well-studied reasons, light is often described ''either'' as particles ''or'' as waves. White Hat's approach would be to give both viewpoints equal credit and suggest a compromising middle-ground explanation. In this case, also, he would have the {{w|Wave–particle duality|correct answer}} but, in the continuing view of an increasingly exasperated witness to his chronic {{w|False balance|"half-and-half"ism}}, not through a logical proof. Averaging predictions of experts is used to reliably improve the accuracy of the {{w|Ensemble learning|ensemble}}, as well as other methods that might produce a {{w|consensus forecast}}, so his heuristic may indeed have some validity for some types of prediction along a continuum of possibilities. But, for this case, two opposing philosophical positions do not represent the right kind of data to merge into a balanced 'best fit' intermediate predictive model.
 Another example of the middle ground fallacy was used in [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition]], although in that case the person offering the compromise solution was not portrayed as getting the right answer by accident.