David Goodman wrote: > Fiction is a very broad term. fictions can be used for rhetorical > purposes in serious discourse--fictional examples are a mainstay of > philosophical argument, dating back to Plato's cave, if not earlier. > > For this hypothetical animal, I do not think there will be any > difficulty finding a citation that says that it is a fiction. > > The point I am making is more that this is a dangerous path we are on. I would have no difficulty providing a source that Santa Claus or God etc are a fiction. However, given that Schrödinger's cat is categorised in Category:Thought experiments, what does Category:Fictional cats add to the article, and should string theory or string (physics) therefore be categorised in Category:Fictional science? I think we need to be very careful what we categorise when it comes to fiction, and what we are mixing up in our categories which categorise things which are fictive and things which are theoretical. Schrödinger's cat does not exist in a work of fiction, it exists, as you say, in a theroetical argument, which is different from a work of fiction. Another good example is Higgs bosun, or whatever it is that big collider can't find. Mind you, I notice The Lady, or the Tiger? is in Category:Fictional tigers, although not in Category:Fictional females, which implies there are even more flaws in the system.Especially when The Monkey and the Hunter avoids both Category:Fictional monkeys and Category:Fictional hunters. Hope I've better outlined the issue as I see it.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
