Talk:gnoseology

Nuance
A statement of absolute frequency of a term is quite different from a statement of frequency of one term relative to another one. It was the relative frequency that was in the usage note:


 * "The term gnoseology is very rare compared to epistemology."

The usage note is brief and to the point, nothing to be removed. This kind of narrow-minded obsession with reducing all usage notes to labels is unhelpful.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Relative use is usually an implicit part of rarity context labels anyway. We're not putting "rare" or "uncommon" on terms like, just because hydrometallugy doesn't come up very much. It's the main term for the concept in question. Theknightwho (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this: you have already been told not to do this sort of thing, and you are also aware that policy forbids you from doing so. Theknightwho (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have told me not to do this, but you are not the boss here. Policy does not forbid entering nuanced frequency information in usage notes, luckily enough, especially since WT:EL is a guideline, not a policy, per its Flexibility section. Unless someone weighs in to this entry, the usage note will not be there; not worth my effort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you tried acting in good faith, you'd look for solutions that kept both of us happy. You never do. Theknightwho (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to readd the usage note, you obviously have my support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I will revert it, as it would add no new information. Stop being passive aggressive, and learn to talk to the person you are responding to. It is very rude, otherwise. Theknightwho (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It adds new information: relative frequency does not follow from absolute frequency. "X is rare" is very different from "X is much rarer than Y". That is obvious, but arguing the obvious with the one who claims that schwarzes Loch is a compound obviously is not very productive; I might as well talk to a wall. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that information not conveyed by the context labels on the term and its synonym? Did you even bother to look at the entry? Or are you just going to throw around attacks in lieu of an argument? Theknightwho (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Explaining how absolute freq differs from relative seems hopeless here. And I spent so much effort trying to explain compounds and linked to so many sources about compounding, to no effect. Again, please anyone readd the info if you have the stamina. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So the juxtaposition of "uncommon" and "common" isn't relative, in your view? Either you're being intentionally disingenuous, or you still haven't bothered to look at the entry. This kind of behaviour is precisely why I (and others) get frustrated with you, because you seem to go out of your way to "win" arguments, instead of making any effort to understand the point of view of others. Theknightwho (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)