Talk:What Is Your Dangerous Idea?

We need more info

This article has just been created and all help from anybody who has read or is reading this book is welcome. We need a picture of the cover (there must be some non-copyrighted picture out there) and official citations. Thanks to anybody for his/her cooperation. Slartibartfast1992 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what would be suitable for this book? A summary or a list of topics (which is already on the article)? As far as I can see, a list of the actual entries/essays in the book would not be feasible as there are quite alot of them. Thanks for your help! --72.234.196.23 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that a list of the entries would be quite adequate, but I have to agree with your reasoning. Maybe we can list the topics as subsections to a larger section called "topics" or something of the sort, and describe different arguments different people have under those subsections. I haven't finished reading the book yet, but if anybody has, they're welcome to do this. --Slartibartfast (1992) 00:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a seperate section for contributors and the ideas, someone should expand on those sections or change them as they see fit. 72.234.196.23 06:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ideas section seems useful, but I can hardly see any purpose in having a separate section for people who contributed, so I'll just delete the latter and copy the text onto the former section. And you're perfectly welcome to expand the ideas section yourself if you've finished the book and therefore know the ideas that are to be explained. --Slartibartfast (1992) 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article might need a rewrite of the ideas section (maybe) so we can include more information. --Midori hana 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really a rewrite, I was thinking more along the lines of a subsection listing the actual ideas. What do you think? --Slarti (1992) 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is the one who posed the question? The idea behind the question came from Steven Pinker, but the person behind the edge.org is John Brockman. Does anyone know for sure? --Midori hana 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I think it would be best to leave it as "the question was posted by the edge foundation" rather than by who exactly posted it. --Slarti (1992) 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to mention Steven Pinker anyways. An expansion of the ideas section is also needed, it's kind of fuzzy on what the ideas really are; it's not specific enough. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 06:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've come up with a good format that won't need much space but will work perfectly. Suppose an idea discusses the soul. We put it into a subsection called "The Soul" and put different contributors' arguments in separate chort paragraphs in the section. What do you think? --Slartibartfast1992 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, that's a logical format. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - um... I am the Jill Murphy whose quote you use, but I am not the children's author Jill Murphy to whom the article links. I am this Jill Murphy: http://www.thebookbag.co.uk/aboutus.htm - considerably less well-known, I'm afraid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.229.247 (talk) 02:42, November 17, 2007

Oh, OK, thank you! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get to work. Of the ideas I've read, one of the ones most outstanding in my head is one titled "The Landscape". I think that was in physics, and it talked about the multiverse, if I'm not mistaken. (PS.: I won't be available now, but I will be tomorrow to continue working on this). --Slartibartfast1992 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The anthropic principle is something that is pretty important in the field of physics, that's a good one. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but if I'm not mistaken, the anthropic principle explained that humans are a means of increasing entropy, which would go under thermodynamics probably. The landscape, I think, placed string theory into an easily imaginable means, by expressing the whole of everything as a landscape. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this though. --Slartibartfast1992 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As quoted from Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time,

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to observe it.

The anthropic principle might mean different things to different physicists, though. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, that was it. Thanks for the correction. According to that definition, however, I would see it more fit inside the topic of biology or intelligent life, as an alternate though strangely coexisting theory to evolution. What do you think? --Slartibartfast1992 04:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think that "Mind is an equally distributed quality" (or something like that; it explained panpsychism) should go in the intelligent life section, and that this other idea that said God was present in all humans (don't remember its name) should be mentioned in the same paragraph as panspychism, as it sounds like similar variant. --Slartibartfast1992 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait... we should add anthropic principle to that section too, methinks actually. --Slartibartfast1992 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all kind of muddled and confusing, (about the anthropic principle), but the way I see it most authors from the Third Culture consider it a part of physics. I think I'll go look up the anthropic principle and pansychism later, just to check. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree if in the context of Leo Susskind's entry "The Landscape". See my second latest post on the talk page of the draft for more information. --Slartibartfast1992 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

I suppose one or two ideas from each general topic (psychology, biology etc.) would be fine. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rename.jpg

Image:Rename.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Problem solved, somebody kindly went ahead and wrote a fair use rationale for the image. --Slarti (1992) 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Followed by...

I think we need a reference for the book in the "followed by" part of the book infobox. Just minor detail. Since I did not add it, I can only presume you did, Midorihana, so I turn to you for a reference. I'm sure there is one, but if there isn't, then we must remove it. --Slartibartfast1992 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We need a reference for it? (I did add it, by the way) I have the book in question, I need to finish reading it. It just came out about a month or so ago. Here's the original question: [1] --Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted a reference (footnote) to avoid crystal balls. --Slartibartfast1992 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The article just hasn't been created. (yet) --Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

General thoughts/reactions

I think where the article could mainly improve is the explanation of the methodology involved in putting the book together. After reading the article, I'm still somewhat unclear on who was asked for their input, how the discussions were structured (if they were structured), and how the author put it all together in writing the book (collection of quotes? or summary/analysis? maybe a mix? how are the subjects organized?).

Also, on a slightly tangential note, where did the "to gather a hundred of the most brilliant minds in the world in a room, lock them in, and have them ask each other the questions they were asking themselves" quote come from? A Google search only points to this article. If it's not a quote, I'd take off the marks to avoid possible misdirection.

Overall, nice job!

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)