User talk:88.110.55.20

January 2023

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Popper's three worlds, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tacrag,

yes I suggest you have made a mistake. In the talk section I have posted a range of points comparing the 'expanded entry' you archived and the 'original entry' to which "Popper's Three Worlds" has been reverted. If you recognise or accept a mistake has been made on the basis of this reply you may not need to read those points - otherwise I ask you please do, asking that you please pay particular attention to the careful analysis of half the sentences in the last four sections of the 'original entry' as it now stands.

The position, according to the points made and analysis given, is this:-

1. The original entry in inaccurate and/or misleading in no less than half the sentences in its last four sections - the expanded entry is accurate.

2. Where it is inaccurate the original entry is not source-based - the expanded entry is source-based.

3. The original entry offers four relevant footnoted sources in its last four sections (fn.3,46&7) in support of correct assertions - but these correct assertions, in an expanded form, and the relevant footnotes, are all preserved in the expanded entry.

4. The original entry contains one further footnote in its last four sections but this is to an irrelevant source and is offered in support of an incorrect assertion that World 3 "corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture" (this assertion could only be made arguably correct if understood or presented as a very water-downed nebulous claim and then made subject to major qualifications - so that, as it stands in the original entry as a bare assertion, it is incorrect); and the original entry offers three irrelevant hyperlinks as if these support its mistaken claim that Popper's criticism of "Cartesian dualism" is because "Popperian cosmosology rejects [Cartesian] essentialism" (the hyperlinks are irrelevant and misleading because based on that mistaken claim and offered as if in support of it - and the claim is a mistake because it in direct conflict with Popper's own clear words, as quoted in my earlier reply).

By contrast, the expanded entry corrects the bare and incorrect assertion that World 3 "corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture" and explains Popper's actual position; the expanded entry removes the irrelevant and misleading hyperlinks and presents correct and accurate reasons for Popper's criticism of, and rejection of, Cartesian dualism; the expanded entry supplies additional material including a properly sourced and referenced account, using Popper's own words, which shows that the original entry is mistaken (or is, at best, merely offering "original work" and "personal analysis") when it claims that a World 3 object "is something along the lines of a "meta-object" or "form of being"" - and where again the hyperlinks offered do not support any correct analysis or understanding of Popper's actual views, as is shown by his quoted words.

5. The expanded entry added - at its current stage - no further additional footnotes to sources.

Taken in the context of these four sets of points, I suggest the very last point 5. (that the expanded entry contained no additional footnotes to sources) does not justify wholesale reversion to the 'original entry'. I suggest that the result of this revert is that inaccurate material replaces accurate, and that material that is not properly source-based replaces material that is properly source-based. I also suggest this result is not rational or fair (either to Popper or Wikipedia readers) and it is not a result that is consistent with the stated aims and purposes of Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

DM 88.110.55.20 (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tacyarg,

Having just posted and re-read, I noticed I mistyped your name, and apologise. I am hoping it caused no offence, and was understood as a typo, especially because my guess is it is not your actual name but 'graycat' spelt backwards - much as I guess - perhaps wrongly - that "OhNoitsJamie" is not someone's "real" name either.

D M (perhaps I should offer a prize if anyone can guess whether these are genuine initials?) 88.110.55.20 (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi "OhNoitsJamie", the content in the entry does need additional footnotes but is intended as an accurate reflection of Popper's views. I offer some explanation for where we now are in relation to the entry, from my side of it, so that perhaps you can help me further from your side of it.

At no point does the entry aim to offer a "personal analysis" in the sense of a commentary or interpretation that cannot be supported by footnoted references - for example, the use of the terminology of "World 3.1", "World 3.2" is based on Popper's use of this terminology in his Schilpp volumes (though these are not perhaps the best known of Popper's writings), and the range of points the entry makes using this terminology stay closely within the range of points that Popper makes at various points in his writings (e.g. the points about a Beethoven symphony as World 3 object are set out by Popper in his discussion with Eccles in 'The Self and Its Brain').

As the entry's history may show, I undertook revising and expanding the entry over the last year or more (without first having mastered the art of footnotes), adding to and expanding the original short entry piece by piece.

The original entry, though short, nevertheless contained several important errors - it may have been this that probably caused me to contribute. For example, the expanded entry explains why it is only in a "rough" sense that Popper's "World 3" can be said to correspond to the current state of our knowledge and culture. It further explains how, in Popper's view, "World 3" "transcends" contemporary and also historical knowledge of it. The fact the original had a footnote in this respect did not prevent it being inaccurate, and you may perhaps agree with the important point that footnotes are no guarantee of accuracy - the expanded entry directly quotes a Popper "theorem" ("W3 > W3.2 + W3.1") which directly shows how the original entry was here inaccurate (in suggesting "W3 = W3.2"). Another simpler example: the original entry did not make clear how Popper's "World 1" is not merely physical or material but includes all aspects of the physical, chemical and biological realms - including those aspects that cannot be tested by the natural sciences - and that this is fundamental, including to how it is cosmological theory. The original "See also" on "emergence" was very misleading because it linked to a meaning of "emergence" that is quite different (indeed almost opposite) to the meaning it has in Popper's work - and so that was altered too.

However, especially because I was not immediately aiming to add footnotes of my own, I made additions in a way that preserved the footnotes in the original entry - and I kept to its broad structure, which I found to helpful. I hope you may accept that the aim was never to nit-pick but to raise and expand on points that are crucial to correct understanding of Popper's theory and to avoid caricature of it - and that this is very much in the corrective spirit of the Wikipedia enterprise.

The whole entry was gradually expanded with the intention of showing how Popper's theory is a carefully worked out theory with many applications, both to great works or art and science and to everyday speech and childhood learning. The entry also makes clear that aspects of the theory are left open-ended and there are many questions Popper did not answer in his published writings. It makes clear that he has been criticised for this, and it deals with one of the important detailed criticisms (that has been made by several different writers, I had JL Mackie in mind) and Popper's answer.

My working assumption was that footnotes could be added later, after the entry had 'settled down'. At every point I worked on the entry I knew there was a community of people knowledgeable about Popper who might wish to amend or change what I'd written - and this might rightly be a test to pass first, before footnotes were added. Also, it seemed to me more logical to put footnotes only once the main content has settled. As it happens, two minor changes were made by others in respect of a word and a use of inverted commas, showing their considerable care and attention to detail. That more changes were not made I hoped might reflect my own care and attention to detail in developing the entry.

In December 2022, the entry in its current expanded form was read over by one of Popper's former research assistants, who is a renowned and published expert on Popper's philosophy, and they offered no objection to the content as put. I take this as a reflection that the content is far from a "personal analysis" in the pejorative sense, or in the sense that would offend against Wikipedia guidelines. It was clear from their written response that additional footnotes would be beneficial.

So I very much agree that the entry should now be more extensively footnoted (assuming it can be restored or presented as it was before your editorial intervention). And I agree that someone not familar with Popper's work might be concerned, without more footnotes, that the account offered is "personal" rather than closely based on Popper's published writings.

Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt at adding anything to a Wikipedia entry, and I hope you may understand how my efforts expanded over time and how they were focused on improving the content, so that a much fuller and more accurate view of Popper's "theory" is presented. The entry now goes some way to linking this "theory" with other aspects of Popper's philosophy, including well-known aspects like 'falsicationism', and so it now provides - I hope - a much wider and more rounded picture than the original short entry.

As this is my first effort I hope you may understand why I proceeded as outlined. The bulk of the entry has gone without any substantial or serious alteration by anyone else for some time - so I understand that the time is ripe that the material be be reinforced by careful addition of helpful footnotes. My aim would be not to overclutter the entry but provide enough key footnotes so that readers know where they can source the various content, especially as it is derived from material scattered in many different books by Popper.

So I ask whether you have any further advice or suggestions, including anything which my improve my understanding of how I can make my longstanding contribution suitable for the Wikipedia community in terms of footnoting. It would help me to know whether there is a timescale to be observed.

As a sign of how little I know as to the relevant editorial procedures, I remain uncertain how much the "Please Stop" warning that has prompted this response is from you directly or from an automated process, and more generally what happens here because of standard procedures and what results from personal judgment and intervention.

Kind regards,

D M 88.110.55.20 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Take a look at some of the other topics in Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics; note that articles like Four causes and Similarity (philosophy) have numerous inline citations throughout the articles. From WP:Verfilability, one of the [[WP:5P|5 pillars of Wikipedia: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for referring me to material to read on Wikipedia policies and strictures. I must also apologise for any problems reading this, especially as it was copied and pasted and the original formatting has not been preserved.

However, this isn’t a case where I started a new entry with unsourced and ‘un-footnoted’ material, and it has then been blocked, or replaced by better sourced material. Instead the situation is that over the past year or more I made gradual changes and additions to a pre-existing entry, regarding Karl “Popper’s Three Worlds”, and you have decided to revert the entry back to almost how it was before I made any contributions. This means – or so it would seem – that you have effectively decided that the ‘original entry’, to which you have now reverted, complies better with Wikipedia strictures – both against “original work” and “personal analysis”, and in favour of referenced sources for information.

Here I explain why I disagree with that decision, or at least find it highly questionable:-

essentially because,

(1) the reverted or ‘original entry’ contains much more that constitutes “original work” and “personal analysis” than my own contributions – because my contributions stick closely to Popper and other writers as their source; whereas the ‘original entry’ – despite its brevity – contains a number of inaccurate and misleading and unjustifiable statements;

(2) the misleading and inaccurate statements in the ‘original entry’ are not properly sourced – in one case a completely irrelevant source is quoted and in other cases no source is given.

The result of your application of the strictures has been as follows:–

(1) a carefully written and accurate ‘expanded entry’, with some additional sources in the main text but no additional footnotes (and an ‘expanded entry’ that has now been read without serious objection by Popper’s own former research assistant - who remains a leading, published expert on Popper’s work),

has been removed, by instead reverting to

(2) a much, much shorter ‘original version’ that is much less carefully written, and which, despite being brief at times to the point of ‘threadbare’, contains important inaccuracies on basic issues – and where those inaccuracies are not supported by any relevant footnote or source.

That, I suggest, is a highly questionable result.

Please bear with me as I try to explain further – I hope you may understand that a false or inaccurate claim may be stated in a small number of words but it may take a much greater number of words to explain why it is false or inaccurate.

Half the sentences in the last four sections of the ‘original entry’ are false, misleading or dubious

By my calculation, a full half of the sentences in the last four sections of the entry (as it now stands, following your intervention) are seriously in error or seriously questionable. (The detail is set out below by examining those sentences under numbered headings (1) to (7).) This level of error represents a significant downgrading from the amount of error or questionable material in the expanded entry.

There are other paradoxical results of your administrative intervention:- if we include the information provided by the hyperlinks, the ‘original entry’ as it now stands provides far more material on Descartes’ views of mind and body than it does Popper’s – with all the carefully explained material on Popper’s view of the mind-body problem in the expanded entry having been removed by your actions and replaced with misconceived and unsourced references to “essentialism” and “Popperian cosmology”. As is shown by quoting directly from Popper below, Popper’s opposition to Cartesian dualism is not based on his rejection of “essentialism” or on some “Popperian cosmology”, instead (as was explained in the expanded entry) it is based on the inconsistency between Descartes’ views of the character of mind and body and Descartes’ theory of causation – so that the unsourced material in the original entry as it now stands is wrong, because it does not reflect Popper’s actual views.

Before going into points of detail, please imagine as follows. Imagine someone wrote on Wikipedia that Einstein’s “theory” is that “e = mp17”, and then supported this by a footnote to someone who is not Einstein and who says no such thing anyway. And then imagine some one else corrects this to “e = mc2”, and then gives some fuller explanation of the meaning of this and its consequences, but without giving a footnoted source for “e = mc2”. And then imagine that a Wikipedia administrator judges that, editorially, the footnoted “e = mp17” must be preferred as main page content over the corrected content – and justifies this because of the need for sources, and to stop “personal analysis” being presented? Popper’s “World 3.1” and “World 3.2” terminology is no way as well-known as “e=mc2”, but this imaginary situation reflects something of my view of the recent editorial/ administrative actions in regard “Popper’s Three Worlds”.

My own revisions and additions, over the past year or more, form what I call the ‘expanded entry’ – which was online and accessible as the main page entry until 6th January 2022. It was of course open to anyone in the Wikipedia community to challenge, change or add to this gradually expanded entry (and two did so). This ‘expanded entry’ is here contrasted with the much shorter ‘original entry’ (by which I mean the entry as it largely stood before I began any changes or additions).

In ‘undoing’ the expanded entry the editorial decision has been to revert in most sections to the ‘original entry’. Some of my contributions are kept - despite absence of footnotes - in the first substantial section, “Worlds 1, 2 and 3” – though a considerable amount of additional material has been excised from this section by the reversion. The other four later sections appear to largely or entirely revert to the entry as it stood before I made any contributions or alterations – and this ‘reversion’ certainly amounts to wholesale removal of my efforts.

It is a measure of how ‘threadbare’ these four later sections now are that the first contains just 5 sentences, the second a mere 2 sentences, the third just 3 sentences, and the fourth contains 4 sentences – that is, 14 sentences in total. As at least 7 of these sentences significantly misrepresent or mislead as to Popper’s actual “theory” or views, as shown below, that means half the sentences in the last four sections are either seriously in error or highly dubious. In this they are not accurate or well-sourced, but inaccurate and unsourced – and they cannot be viewed as accurate reporting from sources but, at best, might be viewed as someone’s “original work” and “personal analysis”.

Analysis of sentences in the entry as it now stands

The points (1) to (7) below show that the recent editorial interventions revert to a shorter entry that, despite its shortness, is (A) repeatedly inaccurate and (B) where its inaccuracy is not backed up by any footnote or by any relevant footnote. This seems to me a questionable result in the light of the stated purpose of Wikipedia policies and strictures – questionable as perhaps in the phrase, ‘out of the cold frying pan, into the hot fire’.

These inaccuracies mean that Popper’s actual “theory” is badly misrepresented by the ‘original entry’/reverted entry/entry as it stands – despite, or perhaps because of, its being extremely brief. This misrepresentation was a significant factor in my seeking to correct and expand the entry.

I have assumed in what follows that you have not made any edits or contributions to the entry yourself, and nor has anyone you know or who is connected to you, and so you have not any possible personal interest in preserving certain edits and removing others. However, if this is not the case, I ask you to make clear what the true position is.

In what follows each sentence with errors and dubious claims is set out against a large numeral, running from (1) to (7), and then explanation is given as to why the sentence is false or dubious.

(1) The ‘original entry’ as it now stands: “Popperian cosmology rejects this essentialism”.

This is from the following section that I quote in full:-

“The theory of interaction between world 1 and world 2 is an alternative theory to Cartesian dualism, which is based on the theory that the universe is composed of two essential substances: res cogitans and res extensa. Popperian cosmology rejects this essentialism, but maintains the common sense view that physical and mental states exist, and they interact.”

The import of this is first, and correctly, that Popper’s theory provides an alternative to Cartesian dualism – a point that was developed a greater length in the expanded entry. Second, and incorrectly, it seemingly asserts that this alternative is because “Popperian cosmology rejects this essentialism” – that is, the “essentialism” in Descartes’ philosophy.

No source or footnote is given for this second, inaccurate claim – which is disprovable by quoting directly from Popper’s own work on this very issue, as shown below. No source is given for the expression “Popperian cosmology” in this context, and no source is given for how “essentialism” is the root of Popper’s objection to Cartesian dualism. Not only is no source given but it is clear the entry merely makes this assertion - “Popperian cosmology rejects this essentialism” - without any further explanation.

In this example, you have decided to object to source-based accurate information in the expanded entry but not to object to inaccurate information that is not source-based in the original entry. Your intervention is based on taking issue with the lack of a footnoted source in the expanded entry but not taking any objection to the lack of any footnoted source in the original entry.

What this shows is obvious, but worth spelling out:

(a) the intervention here is inconsistent in its demand for footnoted sources as between the expanded and original entries

(b) the intervention is not from someone competent or fit enough – probably because not well-read in Popper’s work – to tell the difference between an accurate, source-based account of Popper’s views and an inaccurate account that is not properly source-based.

Either the intervener believes they know enough to think Popper opposes Cartesian dualism because of its “essentialism” and because of “Popperian cosmology”, in which case they are shown wrong by Popper’s own words (below), or they have no real belief as to what is correct here but simply have intervened in a one-sided way as between the original and the expanded entry. Neither seems tenable.

The question is not whether an administrator nevertheless has the power to intervene to replace accurate and source-based material by its opposite - you have shown you have that power - the question is whether this is defensible an exercise of administrative function?

Here the original entry misrepresents the kind of argument or point that Popper makes in support of his theory, in ways that distort the character of Popper’s view.

For example, the references to ‘res cogitans’, ‘res extensa’ and “essentialism” may seem learned and well-informed but they go against the clearer and more accessible terms of Popper’s opposition to ‘Cartesian dualism’. Popper focuses on Cartesian ideas of ‘push’ as causation and of mental and physical “substances” – as explained in the expanded entry. The fact that ‘res cogitans’ and ‘res extensa’ are latin terms, and have been given hyperlinks, may look impressive – but is beside the point in terms of accuracy of information:- it is an important fact that Popper’s argued opposition to Descartes is not based on the broad brush of opposing Descartes’ “essentialism” – because even if Descartes had stripped his work of its “essentialism”, Popper insists the real problem is Descartes’ view of causation as material ‘push’ and Descartes’ view of mind as an immaterial “substance”. The key criticism is not that mind is a “substance” but that because it is “immaterial” it is impossible to see how it could ‘push’ anything, when ‘push’ is conceived as a material form of contact. This is made clear by Popper’s discussion of these questions in ‘The Self and Its Brain’, discussions which the expanded entry sought to accurately summarise.

At p181 ‘The Self and Its Brain’, Popper makes clear it is not Descartes’ “essentialism” which is the problem, it is Descartes’ theory of causation (though this admittedly arises from his essentialism – which may be why some get confused).

At p.181 Popper writes, “I agree that the mere diversity of nature or essence (of mind and body) does not create a difficulty…” in other words, Descartes’ “essentialism” as regards differences between mind and body does not itself create a difficulty. Popper then explains it is the resultant theory of causation which undermines Cartesianism – “However, if one accepts Descartes’ essentialist theory of physical causation, in addition to Descartes’ essentialist view of soul and body, then it would, indeed, seem difficult to understand how this interaction (of mind/soul and body) could take place.” And in case anyone thought the mention of “essentialist” here, indicates the problem somehow is Descartes’ “essentialism”, Popper makes clear it is not – adding, in the clearest of terms on this point, “But I suggest that it is only the Cartesian idea of physical causation (admittedly, derived by Descartes from the essential property of physical substance) that creates a serious problem, and not the idea of an essential difference of the substances.” (The emphasis on "only" is Popper's own.) This means the current entry is simply wrong to claim that Popper’s opposition to Cartesian dualism is based on Cartesian “essentialism” or on some “Popperian cosmology” which rejects this essentialism. Instead it is crucially based, as the expanded entry explains, on it being impossible to conceive material ‘push’ between an immaterial and a material substance. (The fact that Popper does oppose “essentialism” is therefore here a red herring.)

The original entry therefore misrepresents the real thrust of Popper’s actual opposition to Cartesian dualism, and Popper’s actual criticism. It also fails to explain how Popper stands overall in relation to Descartes in anything like the ways carefully stated in the expanded entry.

This kind of misrepresentation does a grave disservice to Popper’s work and to readers seeking to accurately understand that work. In the expanded entry the correct understanding of Popper’s relation to Cartesian dualism was used to introduce other important aspects of Popper’s thought, which were then given further explanation – especially Popper’s view of ‘causation’ and ‘causal issues’. But all this important material has been removed by administrative intervention, leaving readers with the inaccurate assertion that Popper opposes Cartesian dualism because of its “essentialism” and what is termed “Popperian cosmology”, neither of which terms are properly explained or sourced in terms of Popper’s philosophy.

Footnotes and hyperlinks have their importance, but most readers value accurate, properly detailed information - not threadbare, inaccurate information with irrelevant footnotes and misleading hyperlinks, dressed up in unnecessary latin tags.

The editorial intervention produces a paradoxical result. The editorial intervention justifies itself in the name of opposing “original work” and “personal analysis”, and in the name of supporting verified sources. (It may be right to say the expanded entry lacked adequate footnotes.) But the editorial intervention reverts to a short entry that does not represent Popper’s actual views but instead presents someone else’s “original” and “personal” and, most importantly, inaccurate account. As further shown below, these flawed claims are not supported by any relevant footnotes or sources. (See further 6 examples below.) As a result, there is much more dubious “original work” and “personal analysis” in the ‘original version’ than in the expanded version. (I don’t consider there is any "original work" or "personal analysis" in the expanded entry – it is simply that various sources have been brought together in a distinct and perhaps “original”-looking way; but it is important to not confuse accurate reporting drawn from many sources with “original work” or “personal analysis”). Relative length is not an accurate gauge of their accuracy or how well-sourced entries are – it is an error to presume a shorter entry must somehow be more accurate and better source-based than a longer one, like thinking short books must be better in these ways than longer ones.

As my previous email explained, the expanded entry does represent Popper’s views both accurately and much more comprehensively (– even though, admittedly, it might be criticised as not adequately footnoted to relevant sources - especially to relevant passages in Popper's works).

Taking these last two paragraphs together, it is therefore very questionable how the lack of adequate footnotes in the expanded entry justifies wholesale reversion to the ‘original entry’.

Further 6 examples of how the ‘original entry’ – as it now stands because of the recent editorial intervention - is both inaccurate and unsupported by proper footnotes:-

(2)' Entry as it now stands: “The world 3 objects are embodied in world 1.”

No footnote is given for this bald statement.

This statement is not accurate without serious qualification because only some World 3 objects are embodied in World 1, and then only sometimes, and for a limited period of time (for the period of time the World 1 object continues to represent them).

Perhaps more importantly, it is easy to misunderstand, from this part of the original entry, that World 3 objects become part of World 1, and that this is always the case - but this is not Popper’s view, and is at best the contributor’s own “personal” and “original” view (even if that view might reflect a typical misunderstanding).

The expanded entry explained Popper’s actual views using Popper’s own terminology:- of “World 3.1” objects to denote World 3 content that is embodied or encoded in World 1 - and by contrasting such content with “World 3.2” and “World 3.3” content. The expanded entry further explained a key point connected with this terminology – that, in Popper’s theory, the World 3 content does not ever ‘become part of’ World 1 or ‘converted into’ World 1 content, but always retains its World 3 character.

If the expanded entry just cleared up this misconception it might have been worth reading.

As shown below, it seems quite likely that the original version is based on, and perpetuates, this very misconception.

(3) Entry as it stands: “For example, the intrinsic value of Hamlet as a world 3 object is embodied many times in world 1.”

No footnote is given for this very questionable statement.

This statement is not accurate as a statement of Popper’s views. It is also not very clear what it means – especially by the “intrinsic value” of Hamlet.

By contrast the expanded entry began this way:-

“A World 3 object may be embodied in World 1. For example, Hamlet as a World 3 object may be embodied many times in World 1 as a printed edition of the play, and it may be embodied many times in World 1 through a performance of the play.”

The expanded entry removes the term “intrinsic value”. It speaks of how the World 3 object “may be” – rather than simply “is” – “embodied in World 1”. These changes are important to correct understanding of Popper’s theory, as are the reasons for them. The expanded entry – though it uses more words – has a much clearer sense than the entry as it stands.

Why the changes?

Nowhere does Popper speak of the World 3 content of a work like Hamlet (or of any World 3 work) in terms of that content either (a) ‘being’ or (b) ‘having’ “intrinsic value”:– any suggestion Popper has a theory of the “intrinsic value” of World 3 objects falls into the category of the contributor’s own “personal”, “original” - and incorrect - opinion. No source for such an opinion is given in the original entry, and no competent source could be given for it.

Popper has a theory of World 3 content, and he has a separate theory as to values. But his theory of World 3 does not confuse World 3 content with some form of “intrinsic value” – the question of what ‘factually’ or actually is the World 3 content of a given object and the question of its “value”, are not fused or confused by Popper. It hardly takes Popper very seriously to suggest otherwise – because Popper has been foremost among philosophers in distinguishing questions of fact from questions of value (See e.g. Addendum II, OSE, “The Dualism Of Facts And Standards”). Also, as the expanded entry goes to some lengths to make clear, Popper’s “World 3” contains low-level and false World 3 content as well as high-level and true World 3 content – and it would be strange that Popper tied such wide-ranging and variable contents to a theory of their “intrinsic value”. He doesn’t, and the ‘original entry’ is wrong to imply that he does.

It may come as no surprise, to those well read in Popper’s works, that the unjustified reference to “intrinsic value” has no footnote or source. However, this hasn’t led to any editorial or administrative intervention with the original entry. Likewise, the lack of any footnote or source regarding Popper’s supposed view of Cartesian dualism, or regarding any of the further points made below, has not led to any editorial or administrative intervention with the original entry. And this of course may give the distinct impression that, whatever standard is being used by the administrator, it is not being applied equally and fairly.

As with (2), the entry here fails to make the important point that it is only the case that a World 3 object like Hamlet may be embodied in World 1 (btw, small point: it is not an omen of accuracy that the contributor does not capitalise “World 1”, as Popper does in his writings – or that in an editorial capacity you did not correct to “World 3” from “world 3” etc.). Whereas the expanded entry made clear how it only “may be” that a World 3 object acquires a World 1 vehicle. It also dealt with how World 1 can affect how World 3 content is represented - without World 1 thereby interacting with World 3. It then explained how Popper views computer processing in terms of his theory. But these explanations have now been editorially removed.

It is simply not the case that Hamlet as a World 3 object always exists as “embodied many times in world 1” – such an object may exist also in World 2, as part of the mental processes of an actor or an audience; and, in Popper’s theory, Hamlet also has another dimension as a “World 3.3” object. All this was made clear in the expanded entry - but this fuller and clearer explanation has now been editorially removed.

Again, the entry as it now stands fails to make clear the key point that the World 3 content retains its World 3 character, in Popper’s view, whether it takes the form of a World 1 or World 2 vehicle – any suggestion that the World 3 content becomes “embodied” in the sense of becoming part of World 1 is again in the category of “original”, “personal” and incorrect interpretation of Popper’s theory.

(4) Entry as it stands:- “But, this representation of an object of world 3 into an object of world 1 is not considered an interaction in Popper's view.”

This is not footnoted.

It is not very clearly expressed, and it is not entirely clear what the statement intends to claim. (The comma after “But” is probably ungrammatical – but bad grammar, though hardly a good thing, may be the least of an administrator's concerns).

Popper does not ever speak of the “representation of an object of world 3 into an object of world 1”, and this way of speaking is the contributor’s own “original”, “personal”, unsourced version – and of course no footnote is given that supports it. The lack of clarity is the contributor’s, not Popper’s.

Popper speaks of how World 3 objects may have a vehicle in World 1 and in World 2– and of how, accordingly, a World 3 object or World 3 content may be represented by some World 1 object, in the sense that the World 1 object is its vehicle.

It is unclear whether the contributor’s wording - “representation of an object of world 3 into an object of world 1” - is just a somewhat clumsy way of trying to say this? Or whether it is trying to say that the World 3 object is converted into a World 1 object (“...an object of world 3 into an object of world 1” - emphasis added).

If the latter, it is yet again the contributor’s own original, personal, and incorrect interpretation of Popper’s actual theory – because Popper denies World 3 content is ever ‘converted’ into some form of World 1 content, and this is crucial to his theory.

The expanded entry, which addressed all these point with some care and some depth, has now been removed – so a reader may have no idea that the current Wikipedia entry, because of editorial intervention, is here not merely somewhat clumsy or ungrammatical but is now completely misleading on a point that is crucial to correct understanding of Popper’s theory. Unless a reader consults the history of the entry, the reader may have no idea that a previous expanded entry addressed all these points.

(5) Entry as it stands: “A world 3 object is something along the lines of a meta-object or a form of being.”

Again – no footnote. Again this is not Popper’s view but is, at best, the contributor’s own “personal”, “original”, and inaccurate view.

Popper has never described a World 3 object as a “meta-object”, and he does not go on about such objects as “a form of being”.

What’s the correct position?

As Popper claims that World 3 content exists, and as ‘what exists’ is or has “a form of being” in some sense, so it may be trivially true that - in this trivial sense - World 3 content is “a form of being”. But then the same is true of World 1 and World 2 contents and entities, and of anything “real” – an ice cream is a form of being, and so is a total eclipse, or a lorry. It is because this is trivial and doesn’t really explain anything, that Popper does not say such things – and someone else saying them is “original”, “personal analysis” that is quite contrary to Popper’s own stated position.

What is Popper’s stated position? The expanded entry did not have additional footnotes but here it did quote a source, Popper himself, and it gave a reference for it (p4-5, ‘The Self and Its Brain’). This material and explanation has now been editorially removed.

So a properly sourced and accurate view of Popper’s position – that “I am not offering what is sometimes called an ‘ontology’” – and some remarks further explaining his approach – has been replaced by reverting to an unsourced and inaccurate “personal analysis”.

I do not see how this editorial change fits with the stated aims of Wikipedia, and perhaps you can explain?

Like most people, I know how it is easy to preach to others about accuracy and sources – and how we might occasionally mistake careful reporting based on sources for mere “original work” or “personal analysis” - but it seems, in this instance, it is also extremely easy to act editorially in a way that promotes unsourced inaccuracy over sourced and referenced accuracy.

(6) Entry as it stands: “It corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture.”

The “it” is World 3. A footnote is given in support, as follows:-

Eccles 1970, p. 165: "Most important components of world 3 are the theoretical systems comprising scientific problems and the critical arguments generated by discussions of these problems."

Does this footnote substantiate the claim that World 3 “corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture”? No, it does not – what Eccles says may be perfectly true and yet it could easily be false that World 3 “corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture”. Is this a big deal? It depends. But imagine someone wrote on Wikipedia that Einstein’s view is that “e=mp17”, and then supported this by a footnote to someone who is not Einstein and who says no such thing anyway?

Please do provide reasoning, should you want to make the case that the quotation from Eccles does offer relevant support for the claim that World 3 “corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture.” But please perhaps bear in mind the numerous differences between Eccles and Popper shown in the discussion sections of ‘The Self and Its Brain’, and that it is unlikely that Eccles is more of an expert on Popper’s actual views than Popper is. The impression here is that while you have been critical and have intervened against the expanded entry because of a lack of relevant footnoted sources, when it comes to the ‘original entry’ you here are unable to accurately judge a relevant "source" from a plainly irrelevant one.

“Corresponds” is a nebulous term – there may be a marked difference between ‘exact’ or merely loose or ‘rough’ correspondence. The original entry therefore can be read as making an “exact” claim or a more nebulous one – but in either case, as the expanded entry explained, the claim is false and it misrepresents Popper’s actual views.

Why is this irrelevant footnote not in support of a claim that is nevertheless accurate and true?

Reasons are given in the expanded entry, though the editorial decision has been to remove them.

Popper’s “theorem” (as quoted in the expanded entry - that “World 3 > World 3.2 + World 3.1”) is clearly incompatible with the view that World 3 content equals or “corresponds to” the content in World 3.2 and World 3.1. In other words, when Popper writes “World 3 > World 3.2 + World 3.1” he knows enough maths to know this is to deny that ““World 3 = World 3.2 + World 3.1”.

So the contributor is here presenting an original and personal view that is quite different from Popper’s expressed view. The editorial decision has been to replace an accurate account of Popper’s actual expressed views in the expanded entry (with a quoted “theorem” of his), by reverting to a view that Popper has never expressed and which he expressly has rejected, and which the original entry backs up only by an irrelevant statement by another author.

Not only did the expanded entry cover this ground with some key points, it tried to avoid nit-picking at the nebulous term “corresponds” by conceding there may be a “rough” sense in which World 3 “corresponds to the current state of our knowledge and culture”. However, it also added some major, important qualifications to this.

These qualifications represent Popper’s actual views – they include

(1) the existence of “World 3.3” content, which cannot be said to part of “the current state of our knowledge and culture”,

and that

(2) we need to distinguish the “current” or contemporary from the “historical”, in terms of what humans have thought or had as culture.

The expanded entry then makes the point, consistent with Popper’s expressed “theorem”, that Popper’s World 3 (as opposed to the contributor’s version) transcends both the current and all the historical expressions of World 3 content, whether expressed in the “current” or some historical World 1 or World 2.

Which raises the question: is the expanded entry here more or less accurate and/or more or less better sourced than the original entry? My suggestion is this is another clear example where the expanded entry is better on both counts, and where the ‘original entry’ clearly misrepresents Popper’s expressed views.

And this is far from trivial, because it is the ways that World 3 transcends its mental and physical vehicles – both now and in the past – that is central to why Popper’s theory of World 3 is of interest.

(7) The current entry: “Popper's world 3 contains the products of thought.”

This bare statement might seem acceptable, but it is threadbare to the point of misleading unless further points are made – and the current entry does not make them.

For example, actions are also “the products of thought” for Popper, yet actions do not exist in Popper’s World 3 – actions are performed in World 1. So not all “products of thought” are contained within World 3. The bare assertion therefore raises more questions than it answers.

What is crucial to Popper’s theory is that World 3 contains only certain “products of thought” – namely, those products that give rise to, or which form, a World 3 object. This means that there may be much mental activity – perhaps including some kinds of “thoughts” – that falls short of creating or forming a World 3 object. All these points are explained in one way or another by the expanded entry – with a level of detail accessible to the general reader yet in a way that tries not to get bogged down in any of these points.

Second, as the expanded entry explains, World 3 contains not just those “products of thought” that form World objects but also ‘unthought’ by-products of those products – like discoverable connections between World 3 objects (e.g. between Mendel's and Darwin's theories), and like prime numbers within the sequence of natural numbers (which is one of Popper’s standard examples).

It is not fair to Popper’s theory to offer such a threadbare statement and then no elaboration. It would be a bit like saying Einstein’s “theory” is that energy has something to do with mass – Einstein’s actual theory of “e=mc2” is much more advanced or developed than that – and Popper’s actual “theory” is much more developed than just saying “world 3 contains the products of thought”.

This is why the expanded entry included a long section on aspects of mind-body interaction, and then the role of World 3, to give some overview of how Popper can locate human action within World 1 yet explain its reasons and causes in terms of World 2 and World 3. Popper’s theory cannot be properly understood by short assertions with no follow-up elaboration and, like many interesting theories, needs an expanded entry to give an accurate, more comprehensive overview.

Concluding remarks

The replacement of more comprehensive, accurate material by reverting to short-form, inaccurate, misleading material – and replacing material that is accurate to a thinker’s actual views with material that is, at best, a “personal”, “original” interpretation of those views – strikes me as a questionable editorial decision. Especially as the expanded entry strives to be clear and accessible and my feedback is that it is.

Among the many things I don’t know is whether the editorial decision is forced on you by the strictures of Wikipedia or to what extent it is an expression of your own personal and subjective judgment as to how those strictures here apply?

Perhaps, rather than simply referring me back to those strictures, you might enlighten me on this last important question? Having exercised editorial/administrative power as you have, I hope you may think it right to better explain or justify the result in terms of the detailed consequences set out above - as these might seem to many people very questionable and paradoxical consequences – with inaccuracy replacing accuracy, and with source-based material being replaced by unsourced.

The essential question isn’t footnotes or hyperlinks, it’s which entry gives the better, more accurate understanding to the reader?

Finally, I acknowledge what must sometimes be the difficult task as administrator, especially in whether or not to intervene on matters on which they may lack sufficient expertise as to what is likely accurate and what isn’t, and also acknowledging it is a fair point that the expanded entry would benefit from carefully footnoted sources.

Kind regards,

D M

P.S. There is always questionable material in any account of important philosophical ideas, in my view, because there are always permissible questions e.g. of interpretation, emphasis, and regarding what has been omitted – that is, there is no such thing as an unquestionably correct account of any philosophical idea worth examining, no matter how well sourced. In my view, the most searching questions regarding the expanded entry are on whether it should push further into some more technical or detailed areas, as Popper’s former research assistant would appear to suggest in his correspondence regarding the entry:- for example, on the concept of ‘recursiveness’ and its implications for the ‘completeness’ of World 3 – this question is broached in the entry but could give rise to a Wikipedia entry of its own if pursued thoroughly enough. 88.110.55.20 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

---