Talk:Wronger than wrong

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Science Low‑importance

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

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of science

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposal: make this into a redirect to the The Relativity of Wrong, and add a section about this quote there

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Let's merge! . ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the article is actually about the quote (& concept described therein) from Asimov's book, it would be better for it to simply be a section in the article about the book itself, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong. The quote is not notable enough to deserve its own article (otherwise we'd need one for every famous quote) and there is no evidence here that the *concept* is either.

Furthermore, the subject matter of the article is somewhat unclear. The description suggests that it is about the concept put forward by Asimov, but also asserts this is the same as "Pauli's proverb" (not so; as this article's own source notes, the name "Pauli's proverb" is used in reference to things that are "not even wrong", about which another Wikpedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong already exists), and in addition to THAT the article currently chooses to use the title "wronger than wrong" to ostensibly describe Asimov's concept - but that is not Asimov's wording, but rather some wording used in a silly Scientific American article that refers to Asimov's concept, and so far as I can tell the name "wronger than wrong" was used there primarily to allow the rhetorical flourish of "not even wronger than wrong" at the end. This "wronger than wrong" name carries with it a strange philosophical implication that this class of reasoning error is IN GENERAL more wrong than ordinary wrongness (a silly assertion not made by Asimov).

So what is the article actually meant to be about - Asimov's concept, Pauli's orthogonal concept, or Shermer's dubious alternative version of Asimov's concept? Beats me. It seems to me like this article is an unfixable mess and the best remedy is to just nuke it, add a passage about this quote on the article about Asimov's book instead, and make this URL be a redirect to there.

If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do this next time I check back here (in at least a week's time). ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should add a formal merge template to this article and a "mergefrom" template to the other article. AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this seems like a fine merge target, I don't think this concept of "wronger than wrong" gets much use outside of Asimov's usage Psychastes (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.