Talk:Philosophy of probability

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Statistics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles

Untitled

This is the archived discussion of a merged/redirected page.
Please see:Talk:Probability interpretations

This article was nominated for deletion on 7th November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Content of article

The content of the website from which I took the material is also authored by me. I took it as it is there because it is very suggestive and rellevant for the title of the deleted article.

Replacing article

After the afd was prematurely closed, I replaced the original research with the temp article that was waiting. 2005 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sole intent, here, is to preserve the original edit log for this page (/temp's History). jmswtlk 14:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current replacement is too poor on the subject that was designated for. It talks more about the probability concept rather than its philosophy. The redirection link to philosophy of mathematics is proving this. Half of it talks about how probability theory was inspired by games of chance. Nothing about philosophy, nor interpretations. Unlike other mathematical concepts, probability is predisposed to various types of philosophies. The article states that all problems of philosophy of probability stand in the correspondence between the mathematical concept of probability and the common language on this subject. No definition of the specific term the aticle introduces(philosophy of probability), no structural approach. The only reason to edit this article was just to replace the old one. The deleted article was far superior on all counts. infarom

Your comment may be true, in a sense; that the page is here at all is the result of the edits/efforts that culminated in the current page which was acceptable sufficient to overcome a 'delete' motion and which was never seen as complete. So, how do we change the page to both improve it and, at the same time, keep it within the scope/limits of the wiki? jmswtlk 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. In fact, what I contest is the deletion (replacement) and not the current page, which can be improved by any edit. In my opinion, the old article was within the scope/limits of the wiki. Good luck with your edits!infarom

I will make this page into a redirect to Probability interpretations a week from now if no one strongly objects. Wikipedia should only have one article covering this topic. I will rescue the references here not found in the other article before I do the redirect. iNic 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I still can't see the reason for having two articles covering the same subject. The philosophy of probability is exactly the same as the study of probability interpretations. What we call the merged article doesn't really matter. We can vote on that. Anyone against a merge? iNic (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be merged. The "Philosophy of probability" title would probably be favored by philosophers though. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of a merge chiefly on the grounds that this article is currently so thin. I agree the two topics are very similar or identical AFAIK. Ben Finn (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Diaconis, who can flip a coin and make it land heads at will"

This statement strikes me as nuts. I am going to remove it for the time being. Anyone?

70.171.41.150 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]