Talk:Science of value

old history

Dr. Marvin Katz, we do not sign Wikipedia articles. We thank you for your contributions. I assume you were not attempting self-promotion, but please let's be clear: this site is a collective body of work, not a means of self-promotion or to promote concepts or companies or other people. We strive hard for a neutral point of view (NPoV). Hu 08:14, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

I doubt if I and Simplebrain are going to see eye to eye, but I've restored a lot of what he had written, so we now have an exposition of how this so-called axiom is supposed to work, and more significantly, what it actually means if you strip it of its attempts to mathematize. Gene Ward Smith 22:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the former article, which of course was complete rubbish. It is included below. Gene Ward Smith 09:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article has been reverted more than once so it is contained in the history of the article page. I am removing it from here, since its purpose here has been served by now, and it is getting in the way of discussion. Hu 18:02, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Please conform to the Wikipedia way; go along to get along.

User:Simplebrain, please follow the conventions of the Wikipedia Manual of Style when editing here at Wikipedia. Also very useful are the tips on how to format pages, on every edit page, just beside the "Show preview" button. They have been developed by many contributors here and are the way they are for very good reasons. You have been asked and given clues more than once. Hu 22:54, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Improperly applied and abused protection notice

It is my understanding of things Wiki that User:Simplebrain has applied the "protected" template when it is not his place to do so. Further, the user has proceeded to edit the page, in violation of the established procedure for "protected" pages. This is more and more looking like the user is pursuing a promotional agenda and attempting to "own" a page to accomplish his goals.

I had my doubts about the quality of the material and indeed about the quality of "Value Science" itself. I am relatively new here at Wikipedia ( contributions), though experienced at a large Wiki, Sensei's Library where I am a Librarian. So, keeping an open mind, I thought I would gain some experience by doing the extensive copy edits needed on the original material and let things develop, to see what there was behind this new Science (capital letters, no less). I find it interesting to have some of my suspicions confirmed by Dr. Smith.

I would like to see some higher level assistance to resolve this, possibly including deleting the page, but I would vote not to delete it, as the antidote to bad speech is more speech. I hope that before long the page will contain only a concise precis of the "Value Science" thesis and some balancing NPoV material as well. Hu 00:43, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

No Communication from Simplebrain

There has been no response from Simplebrain to the welcome messages and commentary here and on his talk page from three users. If that is the case, perhaps the page should be deleted until it attracts a champion who would be a community member. Hu 03:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete it, but I don't think a crank page, which is what Simplebrain wants, is a good idea. I think it should revert to my last edit and then have things taken from there. Gene Ward Smith 04:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted, and I think Simplebrain should respond here before reverting again. However if Simplebrain reverts it again I can't simply keep an edit war going, and we are going to need some other way to addess the issue. Gene Ward Smith 05:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Without a responsibly written page, it leaves a vacuum for fanatics to fill. I think the next step would be to invoke an official warning to Simplebrain if he doesn't wish to cooperate. Deleting would get more of Softbrain's attention, but may not have any greater chance of penetration. Hu 05:27, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Also agreed. I've left another message on his talk page explicitly requesting he stop ignoring other editors and instead collaborate. If he continues the current practice, then other steps may need to be taken. If this is even a notable topic, we can create an NPOV article out of it if we work together. If it is not notable maybe it should be listed on WP:VFD. Darn also wrote this before reading below that he has responded. He will need to work on collaborating and not going his own way though. - Taxman 13:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Gene Smith: I grant you are an accomplished mathematician. However when it comes to philosophy, I have to wonder a little. I am a professor emeritus in Philosphy, my specialties being Ethics and the history of Science. For you to call an exposition about this struggling new field "rubbish" is very reminiscent of the contemporaries of Galileo who declined to look through his telescope, and who reported him to the inquisition.

Wouldn't it be better if you used your skill to contribute to the advancement of Ethics in the world instead of being so destructive. You speak of "pseudo-philosophy" about a discipline that has largely left philosophy and become a science -- and I don't mean it in the sense of "Secretarial science" or "Scientific Chess." Philosophy asks the questions, using vague concepts, which science later answers, using more exact concepts. Philosophy precedes science. Newton, and Lavoisier, and Dalton called themselves Natural Philosophers. Einstein was a Philosopher-Scientist, as is every great founder of a new paradigm. R.S. Hartman was a Moral Philosopher but he also published papers on the universal constants in Physics. [He was a polymath, a generalist, as you will learn when you read up on this remarkable genius. He can rightfully be called the "father of the 401K plan," and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by his colleagues. The deeper you probe about this man, the more, I predict, you will stand in awe. His autobiography is entitled FREEDOM TO LIVE.]

In value science we employ The Theory of Transfinite Sets with division defined by postulation. We also use Hausdorfian topological spaces to explicate the structure of the metaphor in the field of Aesthetics. Instead of name-calling --"pseudo math" or whatever -- be constructive!

I invite you to study formal axiology a bit more intently, read the literature(viz., the STRUCTURE OF VALUE), and come up with a branch of Math that when interpreted in terms of values, will actually be productive. [We are on the verge of adopting a model of energy exchange, where energy is understood as giving someone attention, and The Calculus of Variations may -- I venture -- be a suitable frame of reference to produce theorems of theoretical and empirical import. Can you, please, suggest some other abstract models?

I want to thank you for introducing to a beginner to this site the proper style format. I am most willing to comply with any suggestions, not only for the Wiki layout and style, but for genuine math leads. I look forward to hearing from you what I am confident will be a rational and helpful response.

p.s. Is there something about regarding a person as an Intrinsic Value that doesn't sit well with you? (I may be -- and in this case hope that I am -- wrong about this, but you seemed to me to be holding up the idea to disdain when you spoke about it). ------simplebrain.

• Thanks for responding. I have postgraduate credentials in philosophy as well as mathematics, having studied philosophy and the philosophy of science at UC and Indiana. I left before I got a PhD and entered Berkeley's math program instead, but I am confident enough of my philosophy knowledge to say that Hartman is a really, really bad philosopher. That's dismissable as mere option, but you can take it to the bank that he is incompetent at mathematics and should have left the pseudo-mathematical drivel out.

• Yes, therefore, there is something in this I object to, because I object to claims that something is a "science" and that it uses mathematical methodology when both claims are simply false. That's getting into crank territory. What I've read of Hartman on the subject of transfinite sets is appalling, incompetent drivel. I have not read anything attempting to use topolgical models or the calculus of variations, but unless someone doing it actually knows enough mathematics to make sense it is unlikely to make mathematicians such as myself happy.

• As for his work with the of worker ownership and stock plans, that is all well and good and admirable in its way but it does not make Hartman a good philosopher or a competent mathematician. Gene Ward Smith 23:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

(Was in response to a comment of simplebrain's but got moved around) Well, first, you have made no effort to format the article properly for wikipedia. Second, you have ignored requests from other users to collaborate to create a better article. Third you should read up on What Wikipedia is not. Specifically it is not a place to offer original research, which is what much of this article appears to be. It needs to be factually written and not promote a point of view (POV). See NPOV. There are plenty of other places on the web for things like this, but to be involved in Wikipedia, you've got to play by its rules. Including signing posts on talk pages with ~~~~ - Taxman 13:50, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman -- you refer to my article as "original research." The ideas in it have been independently documented in news stories on NPR, and endorsed by two former Chairmen of the Philosophy Department, at the University of Tennessee. Jimbo Wales has said this makes the report acceptable. Should I mention those facts at the end of my submission?

Furthemore, I do not intend to promote a point of view, but rather I thought I was doing the world a favor in reporting on these developments to establish a relatively new discipline, which has more than a few acheivements to its credit already.

Perhpas you would be so kind as to tell me how I could have participated in a discussion that I didn't even know was going on, since it never occurred to me -- for quite a while, at least -- to click on the "discussion" tab? - Simplebrain 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say it was original research, I said it appears to be because of the way it is written and not cited to external sources. Cite those and don't offer opinions that are not cited to an external source and the it will not be OR. - Taxman 17:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if you have independent verification or information about this topic they should be properly formatted as references and cited. Taxman 17:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

If it is a notable concept, then yes contributing information on it is valuable, especially if written in an NPOV manner. - Taxman 17:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well then you couldn't have, so no harm done. Just work a bit to learn the conventions of wikipedia and it will make it easier to contribute. You seem to be doing fine now, so thanks for your work. - Taxman 17:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

The Structure of Value

I've just now, as Simplebrain recommended, checked out The Structure of Value by Hartman. This is a truly bizarre book; some of it is fairly typical philosophy, discussing like likes of Moore and Husserl, but much of it is not. One might forgive claims that there are about 2^263 particles in the universe--Eddington was much more bizarre and Hartman may have misconstrued something he read. However, one cannot go around tossing out pseudo-mathematical formulas such as $\aleph _{1}^{-\aleph _{1}}={\frac {1}{\aleph _{2}}}$ and be in any position to claim that one is using actual mathematics and doing what is sometimes called "exact philosophy", where mathematical models are employed.

This leaves us with the question of how to deal with the pseudoscientific aspects of Hartman's thinking. One could simply ignore it, and present only the straightforward philosophizing. However, it is not acceptable to present mathematical garbage as if it made sense. What, I would like to know, should be done about it? I think I'll email some philosophers and ask them to comment on Hartman. Gene Ward Smith 00:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In Algebra, a to the minus b power is 1 over a to the plus b power. Here the a is aleph_1. When aleph_1 is raised to the aleph_1, according to Transfinite Set Theory, the result is aleph_2. I have seen mathematicians add an operation (such as addition) to a theory that lacked it previously; so why hasn't Hartman the same right to do so. He annexed division to standard Theory of Transfinite Sets. Granted, it is unfamiliar -- at first -- until one has been working with it a while. Like other valid systems -- and like a symphony, in another field with which you have familiarity -- its measure of truth is coherence. The formula wasn't just 'tossed out.' It is part of an elaborate set of calculations which is entitled 'The Calculus of Values.' Be careful to avoid name-calling when giving a scholarly critique.Simplebrain 18:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phone Nicholas Rescher or Paul Weiss or William H. Werkmeister or Thomas E. Hill.Simplebrain 18:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The confindent claim that aleph one to the aleph one is aleph two in set theory is false; it is true only under the additional assumption of the generalized continuum hypothesis.

The operation of taking the reciprocal of a transfinite cardinal is undefined in mathematics, and you cannot simply "annex" division to set theory without defining what you mean. Hartman seems to assume he will get something like a real number as a result; but makes no definitions. There *are* such things as infinite integers whose reciprocals are infinitesimals, and in fact I happen to be the guy who wrote the Wikipedia page on superreal numbers and added quite a lot to hyperreal numbers, but Hartman was not using such a device. In any case, saying that a Dear John letter is valued at the reciprocal of aleph two makes no sense even if the mathematics were sound, which it isn't.

We do, however, seem to be getting closer to a mutually agreeable page. I do not think any page which says Hartman's work is acceptable to mathematicians will survive scrutiny, and as for philosophers, I have email back from a well-regarded professional who is an expert in the area of value theory. She tells me Hartman has "no significant presence" in philosophy.

As for the page, Simplebrain seems to have replaced some of my direct quotes from Hartman with paraphrases. Surely the quotes are better? Gene Ward Smith 20:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hu:

What, pray tell me, is your understanding of "a responsibly written page"?

I will be happy to write one but I need your guidance. I put in the page that Gene suggested, and that did not meet with your standards, so as a rank beginner who is totally new to this site, I am at a loss as to what you want from me. -- simplebrain.

Thank you for finally responding. A reasonably written page is one that is neutral point of view, one that is concise and tight, one that conforms to Wikipedia style. There is hope yet, but your contributions have met none of those standards.

First, your writings do not have a neutral point of view (NPoV). They do not include any contradictory or cautionary or alternative points of view. They push relentlessly the idea that the topic is a great and wonderful thing. You can do that on your own free (no cost) web sites (but they will have advertising). If you are willing to pay about 60 dollars a year you can even make your own site that you completely control and dominate. That is a good way to go for you.

An NPoV article starts with a dispassionate neutral exposition and then it may include positive statements about a topic only by supportable reference to others. It is possible to include a brief positive quotation or two, provided that they add depth or breadth and don't simply push an ideology. A few generic positive statements (unattributed opinions) can be included if they are supportable, but they would also have to be balanced by an opposing point of view. Your chosen topic is far from settled, established or accepted science, so opposing opinions are very necessary in an article about it here.

I did not see you including Dr. Smith's material in your edits, but frankly, by that point, your uncooperative attitude had made me not look as closely as I had been. I think that a version of what he wrote would be an excellent section high up in the article, perhaps under a heading like "Mathematical structure" or "Mathematical analysis of the theory". I suggest there article begin with a clear summary paragraph to introduce the topic, then a short descriptive section where the subject is clearly explained, then the mathematical analysis, then some positive reflections if you like, then some opposing viewpoint, then finally not much more than about three external links to sites you feel are important to the topic.

Second, an article must be concise and clear. People who read encyclopedia articles do so because they want to directly understand a topic immediately. Your writing has been rambling, voluminous and discursive. It includes extra phrases and words that are appropriate for a longer form article in the popular press or on a web site of your own. After reading (and even copy editing) your article, I still did not understand it. That chatty style of writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Think "pithy" and "to the point".

Third, an article must conform to Wikipedia style. Look around at other Wikipedia articles. There is no shortage of good ones to choose from. Check the featured articles of the day from the main page for a start. Style includes concision, but it also includes layout and text formatting. Take headers, for example. We fixed your headers to conform, but you changed them back to your style which began with a blank space, so that the system did not recognize them as headers, but interpreted them as "included text to format with fixed width font". You signed your article, which violates the collaborative essence of Wikipedia. Your lengthy quotations were clumsily included inline. You must pay scrupulous attention to spelling. Do not capitalize words or phrases in the German style, this is the English language. You must not write titles in full capital letters; generally they should be italicized, and lower case with leading capital letters on key words. You must include a space between words and following opening parenthesis. Attention to detail counts and gains respect.

Another issue, for the benefit of your collaborators here, (perhaps you are coming around to considering us as such), but not the readers, is for you to include a summary of your edit in the "Edit summary" box immediately below the edit window. Thus when we look at histories (the "history" tab), we can see why edits were made and what they contain. Wikipedia is full of tools to use. Use them! Also, try to collapse edits into single edits whenever possible, so that the article history does not have long lists of edits by a single contributor with only minutes between each one. You can make edits offline and copy and paste back and forth between the edit box and a text editor program. If another contributor makes an edit while you are working on edits to your text, you will just have to look at the diffs in the history and integrate them (do not ride roughshod over them). It happens to all of us that intervening edits come in that have to be integrated. In fact, it happened as I was entering this edit, so I integrated it. Also sign your Talk comments here with four tildes, so there is a time stamp and a link to your user page.

A pithy, to-the-point, clearly written, neutral point of view article on Wikipedia will have a positive effect in spreading the ideas of your chosen topic in the wider world, but that is the only way that it will happen on Wikipedia. Think of it as a funny kind of peer review. Hu 19:12, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Hu:

I just became aware that on November 21st you engaged in formatting my article, corrected typos, links, did some copy edits, and in general tightened it up. You also removed the personal PoV, and made you made the piece a more neutral PoV. For all this I am very grateful. Thank you for your generous help!! Simplebrain 13:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome, but your subsequent reversions obliterated my work. Perhaps you can learn from it and improve your contributions. If so, then I will have had a positive effect. Hu 19:19, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)</math>

I've now produced a version taken straight out of Hartman's book. Gene Ward Smith 03:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page at 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

The state of the page at 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC) (Gene Ward's last edit about 90 minutes ago) seems to be a great improvement over what came before. If Simplebrain would like to add a section which is a more positive evaluation, he is free to do so, and have it subjected to review by the whole Wikipedia community, as is everything else. But I hope that what appears on the page as of this writing will be the basic foundation of the page. Hu 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

I just came upon this page from Recent Changes, and yes, this version looks good(and less POV ridden) to me, although shorter paragraphs would help. ;-) JesseW 06:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use this Talk page for Discussion, Simplebrain!

Simplebrain, we have told you before to use the Discussion page (this Talk page) for discussion, not to put discussion in the article. What will it take for you to understand this most basic issue, Simplebrain? What is your doctorate in and how was it awarded? How many times do we have to tell you, Simplebrain, to pay attention to the way things are done at Wikipedia. Do not expect to violate the time-tested ways here without getting shut down. We have tried to help you many times by explaining these things, but you seem unable to understand simple instruction.

I have edited your discursive discussion out of the page, Simplebrain, and salvaged the main elements as an Alternative Evaluation. Hu 08:00, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Do not delete material on Talk pages

I am sorry, but it was necessary to revert an edit of yours (Simplebrain) on the Talk:Science of Value page, since there was no way to untangle your additions from your deletions. Subsequently, I've tried to restore the two main commentaries you added to this talk page. I hope this has been successful and meets with your approval.

You can't delete material on Talk pages, you can only add comments. Article pages allow more freedom (but restricted freedom) to delete or replace material. On Talk pages you can add material and comments very liberally, but you must not change existing material, especially in any way that alters the content of people's comments (including your own, if responses have been already made). Minor edits to fix things like broken links are of course permitted. Hu 06:55, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Some Factual Errors

Gene Ward Smith: I'd like to correct a couple of factual inaccuracies in your article. Professor Hartman died Sept. 20, 1973. The festshrift in his honor was published in 1972. Those distinguished scholars that paid him this unique tribute were indeed showing support for him. Granted, they were not value scientists: they were philosophers. One of the exceptions is Albert Ellis, who practices psychotherapy--he did engage in applied axiology. His student, Dr. Leon Pomeroy, is now the Chairman of the Board at the Hartman Institute for Formal and Applied Axiology. This Institute was set up in Hartman's honor. Does every philosphy teacher get a festschrift? Does every professor get an Institute? He was invited to be a guest professor at both Yale and at M.I.T. Do bad philosophers get invited? He was given the lifetime post of Research Professor at The Univ. Of Mexico, which meant he had privileges that other teachers don't get. He was made first President of the Society for Value Inquiry. He was commissioned by UNESCO to survey the status of worldwide work in Axiology, and they published his "AXIOLOGY AT MID-CENTURY." It beats me how such a font of pure nonsense as you make him out to be gets all these honors by his peers. Another contributor to the VALUES AND VALUATION book is the Chairman Emeritus of the Univ. of Tennessee, John W. Davis who did do research within Hartman's frame of reference; he is no longer in active practice, due to illness. (Note: This comment was written by User:Simplebrain, but it was entangled with some deletions, so Hu has attempted to restore it. 07:02, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC))

Disvaluation and some other comments

"A DVD remote control which has too many button on it" is a concept that a value scientist would categorize as a Transposition of Value. This concept has a cardinality symbolize by: V^"-V". It's value, algebraicly, is: 1 over V-to-the-V, or a mere fraction of value. The words "too many" indicate to the analyst a disvalue. You read about this in THE STRUCTURE book, I'm sure. A disvaluation is taking place in the very act of naming this remote control. Verbal disvalues are translated into the Algebra of Value, and into the value calculus as transpositions. Hartman explained this in careful detail in his paper, "The Measurement of Value," and later incorporated it into his magnum opus. So while you were using that illustration to make a point about enrichment of value, we in this discipline interpret it as a fragmented value, worth little, confirming within the theory -- and its rules of interpretation -- the same conclusion you reached about it independently, via observation.

I'd very much appreciate a response from you on these points.

By the way, in my book, TRENDS TOWARD SYNTHESIS: The Moral Philosophy of Robert S. Hartman I had the identical critique you have in the article in re those formulas resulting from adding and multiplying fair, bad, good, etc. To this date they are inutile and make no sense. However, to be fair, Reiman and Lobachevsky's geometries were around for years before Einstein made use of them, as was the Tensor Calculus. Hartman's output may some day be interpreted in a meaningful way. It is a fallacy of logic to leap to conclusions about their "never" being used, and thus are "nonsense." "Never" is not a scientific attitude. And is it right to find one or two flaws in a long book and then smear the entire work with a brush?

• Hartman spends a great deal of time on his formulas, which are hardly anything so sophisticated as tensors (not "Lorenz Tensor Calculus", please!) Since it clearly makes no sense to do what he did, it is hardly the case that one of these days we are going to see how wonderful it all was. Gene Ward Smith

Of course he is not being taught in conventional philosophy courses on philosophical axiology! That doesn't surprise me. New paradigms face the history of first being rejected as "weird," then becoming so very standard and conventional, and finally, everyone claims that they thought of it first. Thomas Jefferson ridiculed the idea of the Eirie Canal ever being built, and I'm sure you can supply no end of other examples of people who scoffed at what later was commonplace. So why is that part of your evaluation in the article?

• That philosphers aren't taking him seriously is relevant to Hartman for the same reason it is relevant to, for example, Objectivism. What people in the field think is relevant. Gene Ward Smith

And does it make any sense to you now as to why a 'Dear John Letter' situation is worth less than the 'taking literally' what was meant to be a metaphor?

Isn't he at all be be commended for the breakthrough definition of "good" as being a quantifier of qualities, in the sense that "all" and "some" are quantifiers?

• Hartman could be credited with a breakthrough if he had, in fact, made one. However almost no one claims that he has; that you hold a very much minority view entitles you to say "A few people beleive Hartman made a breakthrough of great value", but not to say "Hartman made a breakthrough of great value." The latter, not being remotely close to a generally accepted fact, is not NPOV. In other words, "Einstein made a breakthrough of great value" is acceptable, since this is a consensus view of physicists, but any claim like this about Hartman is not a consensus view, and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia with aspirations to be NPOV. Gene Ward Smith 06:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On all these issues, I'd really appreciate an answer. Simplebrain 08:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Edit restoration attempted by Hu 07:05, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC))

Capitalization

The article title is capitalized which seems to claim that this is a proper noun, but in the lead it is not. Most theories are not considered proper nouns I believe, but since this is the creation of one guy and he named it, it could be. In either case the title and how the article refers to it should be consistent. To change the title, the article needs to be moved of course. - Taxman 14:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hartman Value Profile

I would like to see some info about the Hartman Value Profile. Perhaps this warrants its own Wiki entry. Does anyone have some good information on it? I am curious if the results have really been shown to correlate with anything, or have any predictive value.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Science of Value → Science of value –

Per Taxman above, and the opening sentence of the article. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. This should not be capitalized. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.