Talk:Value (ethics and social sciences)/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Value (ethics and social sciences). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Meaningless?
For me, the following affirmation is meaningless: "A value system is a set of consistent ethic values and measures used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity. A well defined value system is a moral code." If you think otherwise, please measure Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's ethical and ideological integrity. State that value and its measuring unit, and present the calculations in full detail. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Relative value may be explained as an assumption from which implementation can be extrapolated. If it was known, Absolute value could possibly be implemented, but this cannot be assumed, it is what it is." has got to be Wikipedia:Complete bollocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.64.175 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's complete bollocks, but, as it appears to me, wants to say "what is of absolute value is unknown", but I don't have a verifiable source to such a claim, even if I would personally agree with it, so I just deleted it from the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Incomprehensible
The part about "Absolute and relative" doesn't really tell what is absolute or relative value. Who understands it? I dont. I kept reading it for the whole night and it doesn't explain anything. That definition is a poor one. I won't bother changing the content (because many feel holier than thou and change it back), but someone could at least add an example about what is relative and absolute value. "Relative value may be regarded as an experience by subjects of the absolute value." - what on earth did this just explain? The only reason I'll never donate for wiki is because the articles are so incomprehensible. Google search is still the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.21.66 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- With today's edits I've tried to make a more comprehensible explanation of the concept, as I understood it from the cited source. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
afaikt, not relevant
Further Reading: Barry, W.J. (2012). Challenging the Status Quo Meaning of Educational Quality: Introducing Transformational Quality (TQ) Theory©. Educational Journal of Living Theories. 4, 1-29. http://ejolts.net/node/191
Um, "shameless self promotion" by the author? Removed for now. Arided (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)