QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 2:16pm)
I have something about this here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/02/willliam...-existence.html
He removes a perfectly valid observation about the 'existential quantifier' here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=410824145
with the comment 'this article is essentially entirely about philosophical goo and dribble. lets not taint it with anything like maths'.
Now William Connolley “British software engineer, writer, and blogger on climate science” has had a go. I generally appreciate Connolley’s contributions to Wikipedia. He has worked hard to reinforce rational and reasonable and ‘scientific’ approach to articles on science and junk science and pseudoscientific nonsense generally, and that is not so bad. But his attempts at improving “Existence” perfectly illustrate the problem when people who are intelligent and articulate but educated in one subject area try to tackle another subject in which they are perhaps not so competent.
I think his point is not that it is an invalid observation, but rather that it is not what the article is currently about. If you allow a stretched analogy it's a bit like putting in the fact about the area of the circle divided by the square of its radius into the article on (chocolate, lemon, blueberry) pie.
I'm not sure I agree with him - there is some "formal logic/math" stuff that is discussed in the body of the article and as such having something about it in the lede would appear to be justified - but it's a different point he's making.