text:
Talk:Falsifiability/Archive 1

old stuff
''This page should live at falsifiability, no? And Popper is not the only, or arguably even the main, guy to consider when writing about falsifiability. --LMS''
 * Who are some others? (you're probably the best-versed in this area, Larry) --Seb
 * I might not be. Anyway, all the logical empiricists talked about it (i.e., discussed it, as an alternative to the verifiability theory of meaning), and it's an essential concept in the philosophy of science.  It wasn't owned by Popper.  Hopefully I'll get a chance to write up what I know about the topic soon, but probably somebody'll beat me to it.  :-) --LMS

I think all Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable. They can be proven true, but they can't be proven false. From the article about Conspiracy Theories: ''A conspiracy theory is the exact opposite of a [scientific theory]?, in that it cannot be refuted: even evidence to the contrary is taken by the conspiracy theorist to support the notion that an extremely powerful conspiracy is at work, that just has fabricated this evidence. ''

Conspiracy theorists usually reject only some kinds of evidence, those they think could have been falsified by members of the conspiracy. But there's still many kinds of evidence that they accept, most notably "scientific" evidence. --Taw

"All green things are green" is not a good argument, given that philosophy of language people have "grue" and "bleen". A scientist observing a "grue" item would agree that it is green, until it transforms. GregLindahl [ The article now talks a bunch about Quine, who is the philosopher of language in question. ]

Do we agree that the concept of falsifiablity is crucial to the definition of a conspiracy theory? It seems to me that the term 'conspiracy theorist' is a POV one that is used by people who are trying to discredit someone elses theories. We think them wildly unlikely, and we are frustrated that they demand a standard of proof that we think is unnecessary or difficult to achieve. Therefore a conspiracy theory is something that a conspiracy theorist believes. I don't think that in practice it is possible to distinguish between a theory which is falsifiable and one that is not (except in the most simple of cases) certainly few modern scientific theories, political theories or theories of social behaviour are easily falsifiable.2toise 15:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No definition for 'falsifiable' or 'falsifiability' given here, only a list of things that aren't falsifiable. How can I determine whether ID is falsifiable, if there's no definition here? Ed Poor

 * You could always read a book about the history of science, and then write the definition yourself. GregLindahl

 * Hey, hey, hey - let's play nice. (IMHO) there's nothing wrong with saying "I think there should be more info on Wikipedia on 'X', but I'm not qualified to do it. Anybody?"

 * A couple excerpts from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary :
 * falsifiable: capable of being falsified.
 * falsify: 2. to show to be unfounded or untrue; to disprove; to prove to be false.
 * There are other definitions of falsify, but I'm confident the above is the relevant one. It would seem that the question is whether there could exist any evidence which, if presented, would clearly demonstrate that the proposition in question is false.
 * --Wesley
 * --Wesley

Thanks, Wesley. Now how do work that definition into the body of the article? It's pertinent to reams of talk about Creationism and Evolution. Ed Poor

 * It ain't the definition that's the problem, it's the nitty-gritty. If I say that (for example) I've falsified the hypothesis that Argon dating is accurate, and you don't agree, how do we come to a consensus?

Um, you don't get it. Everyone would agree that "Argon dating is accurate" is a falsifiable statement. GregLindahl

Moved here to /Talk until we decide whether this is or isn't an example of falsifiability.

"For example, before the 1960s, there was no way to disprove the proposition that there were little green men living on the other side of the moon. So it wasn't considered a scientific hypothesis. When it became possible to examine the moon closely with spacecraft-mounted cameras, the proposition gained falsifiability, because there was a way to disprove it. Alas, the "moon men" hypothesis's viability lasted only a short time, as an exhaustive photographic survey of the moon showed no evidence of life on the moon."

The Little Green Man example is poor; we knew in the 1960s that eventually we would be able to prove whether or not LGMs lived on the back side of the Moon. Unfalsifiability is generally reserved for things which are considered to NEVER be falsifiable. Again, reading a book about the philosophy and history of science is probably a better way of learning about this topic... much better than giving incorrect examples all over Wikipedia. GregLindahl

 * You're begging for it, and here it comes. Go up one level in a minute or two.

Re your "Moon man" example: No, I think that's wrong. The idea is that if something is in principle unfalsifiable, then it isn't Science. I.e., "Are there little green men on the moon?" "Go check." "But it's far." "Well, build a rocket or something." -- in theory we can imagine a check or test of our hypothesis.

But something like "God created the Universe ten minutes ago exactly as we see it, including our memories" is an "airtight" hypothesis, no way to disprove, and not Science, by definition.

 * Thank you, that's a classic example of falsifiability, one that Ed would run into if he educated himself by, say, reading a book, as opposed to posting wrong stuff on Wikipedia. GregLindahl

''The theory of evolution as generally taught. It is not falsifiable, because it claims that God has nothing to do with the appearance of new species of life. There is no way to falsify this claim (as it is dependent upon an unfalsifiable premise), so it's not a scientific hypothesis, only a philosophical conjecture. People who claim to be scientists can make unscientific (and unfalsifiable) claims.''

I disagree. The theory of evolution does not claim that God has nothing to do with the appearance of new species of life. It's quite possible that God saw evolution as a nice quick way of creating a stable ecosystem from basic components without creating each in turn. After all - it's the original genetic algorithm! And nothing stops God from carefully fiddling about with a pile of carbon atoms in deepest darkest Africa and creating something new.

So lets jettison the 'God' argument, and reduce this to the statement "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is non-falsifiable". At the present moment in time, there is no way in which we can go back in time and watch evolution take place. So at the moment it is unfalsifiable. However, in a billion years time (when we'll all be getting worried about the sun going red giant on us) there will be 1000 million years of data to look back on. If no new species arise, then patently it is false; if radically different species (ie: unrelated species) arise, then patently it is false; if we see evolution occurring then it appears to be true. At this point, it can be falsified.

It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution has a major caveat in it's title: it is a theory, not a proof. Theories are by definition unproven, and for all science (excepting the man-made sciences such as Mathematics) nothing can be conclusively proven. The best that can be hoped for is this: the theory must make a prediction prior to the making of an experiment, and must agree with all future experiments in this field. Darwin's theory of evolution does this (just) - therefore it is falsifiable. Given (lots of) time.

However, there are no other theories (by the definition of making a prediction) about how the species evolve (or, at least, I haven't heard of them). So the theory of evolution is the best working theory so far.

(Also, it might be a good example to put a good example of a scientific theory being found false, and how it could have been considered falsifiable before the evidence to the contrary: Newton's laws of motion might be a good choice.)

Please let me know at my name page if you add to this conversation.

Dave McKee

Natural selection can also be falsified without the wait, as even though speciation takes a long time, you can still witness the various stages of the process in different species. Plus the theory makes some predictions about the fossil record that one could go back and check, though I suppose these are more for checking gradual evolution than any particular mechanism. A historically important alternative to Darwin was Lamarck, which claimed that organisms aquire new traits through practice and then pass these on to their offspring. A step in the right direction, proved incorrect.

 * "it might be a good example to put a good example of a scientific theory being found false, and how it could have been considered falsifiable before the evidence to the contrary: Newton's laws of motion might be a good choice."

 * As I understand this, Newton's laws of motion have not been found false, but are rather a "special case" under Relativity (which admittedly seems to apply to 99% of situations humans encounter).

 * Thanks for the input! Dave McKee

I restored the point about a theory as taught, (with an added explanation) since it was bringing in a different aspect of unfalsifiability not mentioned in the other points listed. I also added two more points, (one from /talk) about what is involved in unfalsifiabilty.

I removed this because it is either false or redundant:

 * The theory of evolution as generally taught: It is not falsifiable, because it claims that God has nothing to do with the appearance of new species of life. There is no way to falsify this claim (as it is dependent upon an unfalsifiable premise), so it's not a scientific hypothesis, only a philosophical conjecture. People who claim to be scientists can make unscientific (and unfalsifiable) claims. Note that its unfalsifiability is not due to the subject material being taught, but by the method that is being used in the teaching.

If by "as taught", you mean that most teachers of evolution explicitly teach the non-existence of God, this is false. And even if it were true, the first example here already points out that both the existence and non-existence of God are nonfalsifiable, so it is redundant. --LDC

I'm glad you have lived in a world where teachers of evolution do not teach the non-existence of God. I, however, would like to see evidence other than your simple statement that this world really exists. My experience certainly differs from yours, and feel the item should be included in this article. -- BenBaker

I am placing this item back into Falsifiability. It is pointing out that unfalisfiability is transitive, and brings up the proper point that just because something is taught doesn't mean that it is falsifiable. I would be happy to edit it to include a different example if Lee provides one, but this example, in my experience, is one that has maximual impact on the reader, and thus is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

It seems to me that the inclusion in Falsifiability of an example about evolution being unfalsifiable is in irreconcible conflict with the (scientific) criticism of Intelligent Design, Creationism, or whatever we're going to wind up calling it.

I'd like to see wiser heads than mine come up with a definition that enables the intelligent layman to discern whether a given hypothesis is falsifiable and thus entitiled to status as a "scientific" hypothesis.

--Ed Poor

 * Yes, it was a conflict, because it was nonsense. I put it where it belongs.  I also added a clearer definition, and clarified the examples.  It should now be understandable to anyone.  --LDC

 * Excellent work! We now have an encyclopedia article on falsifiability, and my little green men can go back to Pluto for a well-earned rest :-) --Ed Poor

Ben, I undid some of your changes: they're certainly not wrong, and I see why you might want to include them for rigor, but I don't think this particular article is the place for that. This is a high-level overview of what is really a very simple concept, and I think it's important to keep the examples simple and straightforward. I also think it's reasonable to group the falisifiable one into things like "physics" and "evolution"; otherwise there will be hundreds of them. --LDC

I also removed:

 * Reciprocal System of Theory: A theory that, its present form, does not contain any mathematical properties and therefore does not make exact numerical predictions, making it impossible to compare and test against the established scientific theories.

While it certainly qualifies, it's not important enough to even merit being a bad example. Let's keep this explanation simple and the examples common, everyday things that people can relate to. --LDC

 * Yes, by golly! Your explanation is so clear that I, a mere layman, can grasp it. Thanks indeed. --Ed Poor

I don't know a better article for it, and think it is specious to create one just because you don't like to see them. I certainly don't agree the two explanations should be summarily deleted. I think if one looks in an encyclopedia for an article on a simple subject, the writers have an obligation to treat all aspects carefully and not avoid to bring up views or ideas because they are complex. (although I don't consider either of these to be complex, and am confused by who Ed Poor is agreeing with, unless he is using subtle sarcasm.)

 * No, being subtle is not my style, I really am a mere layman. I really did find LDC's example clear enough to use -- for everyday purposes, at least. The new rewrite is even better. At last I will be able to determine whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design are falsifiable, and all will agree :-) --Ed Poor

As I said before, each of these were placed in the article for particular purposes. You agreed the purposes are appropriate (I think), but you deleted them anyway. I agreed I would not re-edit if you should have better examples that fulfilled the purposes discussed. You did not. You simply deleted them. To my knowledge, this means I am required by intellectual honesty and forthrightness to replace them in the article. Please show me that I am wrong if you disagree. -- BenBaker

I'm not sure what you're arguing about here: the changes I made were mostly to simplify the prose of sections that remain here (you put in some parentheticals that weren't relaly necessary, and that obscure the main point). That's mainly an issue of writing style. The only things I removed were not things I thought you put in. They were (1) The reciprocal system, for the reason I note above (no one has heard of it, it doesn't deserve to be even a bad example, and it provides no information on the subject that isn't already here); and (2) the "evolution as generally taught" example, because it is clearly false. If you think either of those does belong here, please explain why. --LDC

I'm always fighting for the underdog's right to be heard, as long as they state it clearly. Hence my support for paragraphs I didn't write. That said, I have explained why I think those two items should be included. I will try again, but briefly, as I think you can scroll back and re-read my previous points.

1) Teaching science as dogma is not good. Falsifiability is essential to a proper understanding of the scientific method. Even if the theory is one that someone may have evidence to support, (such as the Theory of Evolution).

 * I totally agree. If you want to add an example for "theories of evolution that deny the role of God", it would be true (as oppose to "as generally taught", which is false because evolution as generally taught makes no mention of God at all).  But even then, it would just be a repeat of the first example.  I'm sure there's a better example of something frequently taught in a mistaken way, or frequently espoused by scientists--I'll look for one.

2) non-Falsifiability is transitive. A theory dependent upon a non-falsifiable theory is also non-falsifiable.

 * That's true. If you have a good example of this, make it a separate paragraph and expalain that.  Maybe at the end after the examples.

3) Falsifiablity requires a clear, unambiguous formulation, such as that provided by mathematics. The Reciprocal System of Theory (which I had not heard of prior to today) is an example of such a formulation.

 * I just disagree here. It's really a simple idea, and we should emphasize that it is a simple idea, although rigorously applying it may sometimes be difficult.  If you have a better example (i.e., someting that peole have actually heard of and care about) that makes the point you're aiming at, it might be worth including.

4) The teaching science example is NOT false, in my experience.

 * I, for one, have never seen an American middle-school biology text that mentioned God in any way, and given the fact that school boards are infested with Christians all over the country who are quick to pounce on anything anti-Christian, any publisher who actually put text denying the existance of God or denying the role of God in human creation wouldn't sell a single copy, and would probably be lynched. It just isn't done, and I cannot imagine how you can think it is.  -- LDC

 * I agree with you on your assessment. I don't agree that what is written is the same as what is taught. I tend to be very understanding of other people's beliefs. That doesn't mean that I am naive enough to think that they don't have them. I have heard too many 'side comments' to say that non-God evolutionary theory is not being actively taught in the U.S. school system, from elementary schools through graduate schools.

RE: It seems to me that you have an axe to grind about evolution, and not about falsifiability. I would agree that for all intents and purposes, evolution is non-falsifiable, however, it doesn't really matter how evolution is taught at school, as long as people get the idea that it is at least questionable as to whether or not we can falsify evolution. As I play the devil's advocate here: the idea that we will have 1000 million years to study life on this planet is non-falsifiable, and as you have said, falsifiability is transitive.

I think we could argue about evolution for pages and not contribute to anyone's understanding of falsifiability. In my view it would be best to say that any scientific theory involving God would be unfalsifiable, including any theory that denied his existence. That covers both sides, and is the most accurate. Questions of evolutions falsifiability would do very well on the theory of evolution page.

Since I'm being such a curmudgeon, I'd like to leaven this with the fact that this article did contribute to my understanding of the basic idea, as well as some of the extensions of this idea by various philosophers.

Foxgemini

On a different note, should the different sub-theories of the Theory of Evolution be lumped into one paragraph ? I think they are distinct, and should be able to stand on their own as falsifiable or non-falsifiable. I appreciate the wikifying to RNA and proteins, btw. I simply argue that it is actions like these that promote the idea that there is a single monolithic Theory of Evolution, rather than a dynamic constellation of theories all elaborating different aspects of the subject. -- BenBaker

 * Yes, they are separate ideas; the grouping is a matter of style, because otherwise the list of falsifiable ideas I fear will become long and unwieldy. Grouping is a good technique for simplifying prose.

 * Also, I have to say that even if some particular sentence, example, or explanation is completely true and relevant, that doesn't necessarily mean that the article is better with it than without it. One has to look at a piece of prose as a whole, and decide if it makes the point clearly or if the extra weight of explanation actually gets in the way.  We're not writing for scientists here, we're writing for laymen.

--- I await your (LDC or other's) work on finding alternate examples. I do think that some examples should be provided. I don't agree that if you don't like the examples, that the points should not be made. My understanding of intellectually honesty requires that I provide information about a topic that I know is relevant to it. -- BenBaker Btw, I'm glad Ed thinks the article is shaping up.

There are some paragraphs now that try to address my concerns with this article. I'm glad of that. The Ten-minute-ago universe has been deleted. I don't know why. The supernatural creation of the universe is still there, but I don't think the Omphalos theory is the same as the ten-minute-ago, since it can easily be misinterpreted as the supernatural nature is what is unfalsifiable, not the sudden creation that is unfalsifiable.

 * I moved the detailed description of Omphalos (and its cousin, the ten-minute creation) to their own article. Those details aren't relevant here, but I didn't want to delete them entirely.

On the issue of things that are falsifiable, I'd like to hear the input of others would consider the following situation to show the existence of God as falsifiable.

Since God is omnipotent, if God wanted to make his existence incontrovertible, he could simply answer any question of his existence whenever it occurs. Every experiment that could show he didn't exist would fail and every one that could show he does exist would succeed. Note that this is not based the bare facts of the experiment, but would need to be "reading the heart or intent" of the experimentor. Now in my opinion, a world in which God did this would be drastically different from the world we live in. Free Will would mean the choice to follow God, rather than to believe whether God exists. Now if that world did exist, would the existence of God be falsifiable or would it just be proved?

 * Hmm. I'll have to think about what you mean here, and how it relates to this article.  I think it might be more relevant to ontology/metaphysics than epistemology, though. --LDC

Can the article distinguish between things that "can't be tested now" because we (1) don't know how or (2) think we never will be able to, as opposed to (3) matters which are logically or philosophically impossible to test?

I want to know this, because it has a direct bearing on the Creationism debate. ID's status as scientific or unscientific depends mainly on falsifiability, so a clear definition will help me. Um, can I motivate you by promising not to "vandalize" the evolution and creationism pages (wink)? --Ed Poor

That sounds like a distinction worth making. I'll think about how to do that. --LDC

 * That was quick thinking, it's already there. Thanks. --Ed Poor

 * Modern theories of evolution. The theory as a whole could be falsified by finding an anomalous fossil of an advanced life form in rocks dated before that life form or its ancestors could have evolved (for example, finding a mammal in pre-Cambrian sediment).  The theory of common descent could be falsified by finding a unique form of Earthly life that was totally unrelated to any existing or fossil form (for example, one not using RNA or proteins).  The theory of sexual selection could be falsified by finding an organism with colorful sexual selection markings that was blind.

I removed this from the article, because what we really need, I suppose, is a discussion of the various views about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution and of creationism. Giving one as an example of an unfalsifiable theory and the otehr as an example of a falsifiable theory just won't do: it really is NPOV.

 * Any theory based upon a non-falsifiable premise is itself non-falsifiable. For example, a physical theory that posits multiple parallel universes with which we cannot interact is necessarily non-flasifiable. If the premise is changed to allow some theoretical mechanism by which we can see or change something in those universes, then it might theoretically become testable.

I removed this too; I don't see what the point of it is, and it sounds quite possible controversial to me (sounds like a topic a philosopher of science might write some dry journal article about).

 * It should be noted that while the criterion of falsifiability is a foundation of modern science, many scientists and educators are lax in its application to their beliefs in general. For example, many scientists hold and express strong opinions about the existence of God or the non-existence of God, even though such beliefs are not falsifiable and thus not scientific.

I removed this. It is totally controversial whether the existence of God is not falsifiable.

 * Likewise, scientists may often speculate or extend analogies to offer explanations for things that are not yet easily testable, and thus not falsifiable.

Yeah, but so what? Why are we saying this in an article about falsifiability? If you want to describe the controversy between evolutionary theory and creationism, do so explicitly. Don't use this article as a platform to state platitudes that are supposed to persuade people of your views.

 * For example, some theories like evolutionary psychology are offered as explanations for human behavior even though we presently lack the technology to rigorously test what causes human behavior. These theories are only falsifiable and "scientific" to the degree that they predict some future means of being able to test them, or that individual facts predicted by the theory might be testable on their own.

The above strikes me as original research, not as a statement of what is generally known and believed about evolutionary psychology. I.e., not neutral point of view.

 * There are also degrees of falsifiability, and scientific hypotheses are considered superior if they are more falsifiable than competing ones.

I've never heard of such a thing as "degrees of falsifiability."

 * For example, a hypothesis for which there are many presently available tests (such as most physical laws) is superior to one that may only be testable in the future with some new technology (such as some psychological theories), and those are in turn superior to hypotheses that can never be tested because they are fundamentally untestable by their very nature (such as the existence or non-existence of God).

And here we've got a lot of talk about what hypotheses are superior to others because they're falsifiable. I would like to have a source for this stuff. --LMS

Somebody could do this article (as well as scientific method) a great service by finding an actual philosopher of science to spruce it up. The article as it stood was pretty appalling--it still is nowhere near being something I'd want other philosophers to look at, but it least it doesn't contain any obviously bad mistakes, as the earlier version did. --LMS

Great rewrite Larry. This subject probably does deserve a more rigorous treatment from a serious philosopher, and the history is certainly worthwhile. The falsifiability of modern evolutionary theories probably does deserve an article of its own, and there is certainly some contention there even among scientists. The transitivity comment seemed to me to be bloody obvious and not that useful, but it seemed important to someone else, so I was being diplomatic. I agree the article is better without it.

While you may be right that academic philosophers do not use the term "degrees of falsifiability", Popper specifically did, and proposed a related measure he called verisimilitude, even going so far as to offer mathematical inequalities for comparing the verisimiltude of various statements.

 * I just didn't know that (which goes to show you how much I know about Popper). Maybe it should be put into the article and attributed to Popper, then.

It is very common for working scientists to rate one hypothesis as "superior" to another on grounds of testability--that's mentioned all the time in journal articles.

 * Of course! But do they put it in terms of testability or falsifiability?  They're different (though, of course, closely related).

But then working scientists aren't generally philosophers of science. I do think that a philosophy of science actually used by working scientists (whether or not they recognize it as such) is worth mentioning here; if philosophers don't mention it, then they've simply missed it.

I also think some of the examples you removed, while perhaps not commonly used by philosophers (perhaps because they aren't that controversial or interesting), may give a better understanding of the field to a layman. I'd rather annoy a few philosophers with trivialities or redundancies than risk confusing our lay audience in our zeal for philosophical rigor. I realize that "popularizer" is someting of an epithet among both philosophers and scientists, but I wear the label proudly. :-) --LDC

 * Actually, the article should be of use to both lay people and to philsophers and scientists. It should begin with a very simple presentation of the issues, and then present each wrinkle of the subject as simply as the wrinkle allows.

Merged earlier more concise version with LMS's rewrite. Most Wikipedia users are not seeking philosophy degrees and would benefit from less-technical treatment.

 * I think we ought to do our best to satisfy everyone. This means that we should begin by presenting the material at a simple level, but one of which specialists can approve.  By no means should we omit relatively complicated points simply because they are more complicated.  If they can be simplified without reducing accuracy, let's do that.  Or, if we can present a simplified version of a point first followed by the more complicated but more accurate version, that's also perfectly appropriate, I think. --LMS

-- Larry, I agree with your last sentence, plus:

 * I think complicated points should go on separate pages
 * Most long texts should be broken into several pages for ease of readability, and for enabling users to easily find text that matches their interest.

Ick. Your merge is much worse than either of the previous versions; it's redundant, disorganized; a mere patching together of two reasonable versions into a mess. I reverted to Larry's version. It is clean, to the point, and well written. My point above is merely an attempt to suggest that maybe Larry's version could be tweaked a bit, not to suggest the earlier version was better--Larry was basically right, the earlier version isn't worth saving in that form. While I agree that what we really want is a serious philosopher of science who can write well, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins don't hang around here much, so we'll have to settle for me and Larry and the rest of the crew. But the article as it is now is quite good, and I don't think major changes should be made to it.

I also don't think it's appropriate for anonymous users to make major changes in articles that have already undergone considerable discussion and revision by regulars (actually, I don't think anonymous edits should be allowed at all, but that's a different story). If you really think the article still needs work, tell us who you are and what you think is wrong, and discuss it here as we've been doing. --LDC

 * With all due respect, I disagree with all your points. The pre-LMS version had been hashed out over a few weeks or more, was conscise and informative, and helpful for the layperson. LMS's version is better for people seeking info at a non-introductory level.

 * The problem with the pre-LMS version, though, is that it was simply wrong on several points, and also non-NPOV in several points. The way to simplify the present text is to add clarificatory remarks of various sorts, I imagine.  I might do that... --LMS

 * Well, one of the things I liked better about the old version was that it was more concise (shorter). I doubt adding to the new version will help that.

 * My suggestion for compromise. Make the old version or something like it the main entry; make Larry's text (probably broken into parts) "additional info" available from the main page. (No, I have to reason to believe that my suggestion will be adopted.)(And I'm getting tired of fighting entropy, so I don't intend to do it myself. Have a good one.)

 * Well, there are ways in which I could agree with your suggestion. E.g., in time, I can see articles on Popper's views about falsifiability, on the Vienna Circle treatment of falsifiability, on the philosophical analysis of (theories about the meaning or conditions of) falsifiability, etc.  But I would certainly not like to see the meat of this article shunted off into an "additional info" article. --LMS

 * "I also don't think it's appropriate for anonymous users to make major changes in articles that have already undergone considerable discussion and revision by regulars" -- I believe I was one of the people who contributed to this entry over the last few weeks, at which time it was being debated by Ed Poor and others. I am anonymous, but I have been at least a semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia for several months. I have nothing to be ashamed of here.

 * I agree with that!

 * Currently, Wikipedia permits anonymous editing, and I am happy to take advantage of this. I strongly believe that content should be judged on its own merits, independently of a name associated with it or lack thereof.

 * I agree as well. But on its own merits, the article that I worked on was pretty lame. --AnonymousCoward <-Don't know if this "signature" was added by the original writer or a later "wit".

Someone tried to mention "lax in application" in the body of the article, but (as I've recently learned) such remarks belong in /Talk.
 * Dialogue is easier in Talk. One's radically different views are more likely to get a fair hearing, if he makes his case here.
 * Wiki Wars don't help anyone. Changes that look arbitary are often simply deleted.

Just my 2¢. --Ed Poor

I would like to have some information about Ayer and especially have a quote. The language of the sentence citing him seems to be a bit odd, probably the sentence is just to terse.

The paragraph in question: Ayer and many others influenced by the logical empiricists have held that claims about morality (such as "murder is evil" and "John was wrong to steal that money") are also not falsifiable and hence strictly meaningless and not part of scientific inquiry (See also non-cognitivism).

'Strictly meaningless' here probably means : 'not a topic of science' -- Hannes Hirzel

I replaced it yet again. It ''is'; what Ayer said, and is a very common topic of even elementary philosophy courses. I'll look for a quote, but in the meantime, don't delete it just because you don't understand it--educate yourself in the topic before you edit an article that many people have spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and education on. I may think of a way to reword it if I can't find a quote, or I may not, because it's really quite clear and accurate exactly as it is. Even better, you might do the research yourself to expand the A. J. Ayer article. --LDC

Here's a quote from Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic (1936): Saying that an act is immoral, he says, is like saying it "in a peculiar tone of horror, or writing it with the addition of some special exclamation marks [which] adds nothing to the literal meaning of the sentence. It merely serves to show that the expression of it is attended by certain feelings in the speaker".

I don't think this should be included in the article itself (it belongs in the article on non-cognitivism), but it might help make the meaning of the sentence here clearer.

I'd say it's simply a matter of interpretation, and indeed a controversial one, to say that Ayer thought moral statements were meaningless. We don't need to say that, anyway. It is not as though they have no function in language, on his view; but they are not fact-stating. So, I guess, the only ground on which we could say that he thought moral statements are meaningless is that only fact-stating claims are, "strictly speaking," meaningful. Perhaps Ayer would want to say that--I don't know--but certainly there are plenty of people who think that reference to other speech acts than the "locutionary act" (the act of stating alleged facts, more or less) is necessary to give a full account of meaning, meaning that meaning and thus meaningfulness involves more than just stating facts. On that view, it would be misleading to say that Ayer thought moral statements are meaningless; though I did add "strictly speaking," this was a confusing oversimplification, it seems. --LMS

- Good article. Could use some linkage to foundation ontology and some notion of reasonable method, feasible method, or whatever the hell we call that debate.

Would be amusing seeing the author try to answer the objection "infrastructure" - three Popper scholars have so far failed...:-)

Those are not topics discussed by real working philosophers (or at least I don't believe they are--Larry's the one to ask), so I don't know if they really belong here. I have no idea what that second sentence of yours refers to. --LDC

-

I don't know what a "real working philosopher" is. For "foundation ontology" start somewhere around here http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/454539.html "Philosophy cannot become", etc.

An extremely blunt way of stating the position of theologians and ontologists is that philosphers (other than body philosophers) and quite possibly general relativity believers and particle physics believers are blathering a bunch of ungrounded nonsense.

Some would say that their conclusions are based on the infrastructure they use to test it, and nothing else.

Falsifiability w.r.t. human cognition is just that - w.r.t. human cognition. George Lakoff takes the most extreme position on this.

That's the bluntest quickest summary of the body philosophers that has ever been written. ;-)

Yes, actually, that is clearer--thanks. Lakoff is as interesting fellow. Since I study linguistics, I made myself stay awake through ''Women. Fire, and Dangerous Things and Metaphors We Live By'' (he can't write either--I can read Steven Pinker all day, but reading Lakoff is cruel and unusual punishment). He's got some interesting ideas, but they are certainly bleeding-edge, unconventional, and original, so they probably don't belong in rank-and-file encyclopedia articles. Of course, Lakoff is important and respected enough that there should be articles about him and his ideas, specifically credited as his ideas. --LDC

I wouldn't mix Lakoff's views up with anything widely held in any of the movements that he is part of. If it's Lakoff, believe me, it stands out. ;-)

This "isomorphism is just metaphor" argument he makes is hard for anyone with a math degree to swallow, but cognitive science of mathematics seems to have been swallowed by lots of real notables. It's not a refutation of falsifiability, but it sure shoves a few serious hurdles in the way of Popper's "universe telling you you're wrong".

The body philosophers entry tries to put Lakoff in context, a bit, or at least throw him in a pile, and maybe helps explain why his "unconventional" views aren't running into more resistance... the po-mos have had a long time to lay the groundwork, and the cogscis and greens have been working on this general underpinning of math as objective... slowly wearing it away.

The default view seems to be that falsifiability within one ecoregion is defensible... but not across say the Continental Divide... even counting becomes questionable. If I have a bunch of some bacteria and I stand right on the Divide, and drop one on each side, and they go downstream to the Pacific and Atlantic respectively, I get two radically different effects... so it becomes "not reasonable" to say that there are two of one 'type of' thing... rather there are two different types...

All of that ties into an economic critique of commodity (which is widely criticized) and product (which is less widely criticized) and seems to back the body philosopher's idea that everything is some kind of action or the green economist's idea that everything is some kind of service... there are connections between these views but only clearly in the bioregional_democracy concept.

Beyond that, there's this wacky divergence of views... as the theory predicts. Quite interesting.

Pinker's stuff on ir/regular verbs is probably next to leave the realm of the flaky... it's on the edge. You might wanna take a stab at it.

Falsifiability has also been importantly connected not only with meaningfulness but also with scientific method: Karl Popper, for example, stressed that falsifiability is critical to the scientific method...

This does not ring true at all. Although Popper's title at LSE was 'Professor of logic and scientific method', he was well known for starting lectures by expressing his belief that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And isn't there a quote from him somewhere, "I maintain there exists no scientific method...". --Chris

____________________

The remark about conspiracy theory should mention that the typical alternative to conspiratorial explanations - that the phenomenon under consideration is the result of accident or chance - is also not falsifiable. Any pattern could in principle be the product of chance, so there is no event that one could not attribute to accident. That, after all, is what Popper was grappling with. How can science prove the patterns it finds by observation have wider validity? Ultimately, it cannot. But science was in a stronger position than its doubters because it could generate testable predictions and make a provisional claim to truth based on them. Theories of history or politics of any sort will fail to consistently generate correct predictions. They lack the scientist's ability to run controlled experiments and isolate variables, for one thing. We recognize this, and don't ordinarily require such predictions from them. But in this respect, conspiracy theories are no different than the others.

Alternatively, the paragraph should just be deleted; it is a tangent anyway.

"In a strict Popperian sense, no known theories of history or politics are falsifiable since none reliably generate unambiguous, testable, non-trivial, and correct predictions. Therefore, the problem is not specific to conspiracy theory, but intrinsic in attempts to understand scientifically situations where variables cannot be isolated. On this basis, Popper himself argued that neither Marxism nor psychoanalysis were science, although both made such claims. This does not mean, however, that any of these types of theories are necessarily invalid. Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether theories are valid."

Is this correct? My understanding is that Popper distinguished between Marxism as propounded by Marx, and the vulgar Marxism of many of his followers. Marx's theory is both falsifiable and falsified. For example, Marx predicted that the prolatarian revolution would happen in the industrialised nations. In fact in took place in agrecultural Russia. -- Daran 04:54, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've adding a more detailed account of the logic of falsification. The strength of falsificationism comes from the fact that, unlike inductivism, the logical argument upon which it is based is valid. Critiques of falsificationism do not call this validity into question, but instead draw attention to the ways in which a scientist is drawn to agree with an existential or a universal statement. In the case of Kuhn, the critique is that scientists simply do not work in the way Popper describes. In the case of Feyerabend, the critique is that if scientists were to work using only falsification, science would ossify. Banno 07:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I’ve added headings to this increasingly cumbersome article. Hopefully this will provide a basis for a more complete look at the topic.

I’ve also included a more extensive discussion of Popper – his view was more sophisticated than the one represented here. This included removing some of the references to logical empiricism and Quine – I think that these criticisms of naïve falsificationism are better covered by Popper.

I’ve added the criticisms from Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.

Since Falsificationism (as opposed to falsifiability) is a political position, it seems appropriate to discuss it in more political terms.

Banno 00:33, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised existential statements"?
 * …just testing to see if anyone actualy read the article ;-) Banno 20:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This assertion is incorrect:
 * "Popper held that science could not be grounded on such an invalid inference. He proposed falsification as a solution to the problem of induction."

Pretty much that whole section is based on a false assumption: falsificationism was more of a response to logical positivism's verificationism or confirmationism, NOT induction. B 02:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Not so. The first section of the first chapter of LSD is entitled “The Problem of Induction”. Popper says:

 * “According to a widely accepted view – to be opposed in this book – the empirical sciences can be characterised by the fact that they use inductive method” LSD, p. 27

 * Popper goes on to summarise the problem of induction, and finishes up with “the theory to be developed in the following pages stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic”.

 * You are correct that falsifiability was also a reaction against verificationism, especially as represented in the Vienna School; by all means add something to falsifiability on this topic. But falsificationism is most certainly a counter-argument to induction.Banno 08:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While falsifiability has some problems, it has been widely accepted as a better alternative to verificationism. It is not widely accepted that Popper's two central theses in LSD (the hypothetico-deductive method and falsifiability) repudiate or resolve the problem of induction. To most scientists and philosophers of science, Popper never resolves the "problem of induction". Popper does a good job of advocating the role that intuition or imagination plays in the scientific method, but his hypothetico-deductive thesis is problematic. Knowledge and all of science rely on the principle of the uniformity of nature which is....inductive...there is just no way around it. B 16:59, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree, B. – with a few caveats.

 * Firstly, falsifiability has the clear advantage of being logically valid. Induction remains logically invalid. That is to say, there is no logical justifiable way in which to make an inductive inference. It follows that science cannot be given a logical justification using induction. I suspect you would agree with this?

 * Secondly, although falsifiability is logically valid, it does not provide much practical support to scientists. This is so because:
 * a) There are an indefinite number of falsifiable hypotheses, and it is not practicable to seek to falsify even a small subset of them, and
 * b) Any one of them can be saved from falsification by making some modifications. Duhem knew this, Popper agreed, stating quite explicitly that the selection of which hypothesis to accept is a matter of choice. Quine borrowed the idea, and managed to get his name attached to it.

 * (I had hoped that these two points were reasonably clear in the article, but if not, perhaps you would like to spell them out?)

 * Do we conclude that the strategy of seeking to justify science on the grounds of it having a special logical status, either from induction or deduction, has floundered? Do you have an argument which will support the notion of the 'uniformity of nature'? If not, how would you justify induction? Banno 19:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "Induction remains logically invalid" because induction isn't based on logic which is why many philosophers say that "inductive logic" is a misnomer. Deduction is logical, but induction is non-logical. At any rate, I do agree with your conclusion that "science cannot be given a logical justification using induction", but that is because induction is non-logical.

I don't know that I would say "falsifiability is logically valid" either. But pragmatically, falsifiability is necessary, but by itself, insufficient for the advancement of science (or of knowledge in general) because it's problematic at least in part for the reasons a & b which you state. Pragmatically, the principal of parismony (or Occam's Razor) is also necessary because it helps avoid ad hoc theory modification recognized by the Quine-Duhem thesis, but it is also problematic.

I don't think science has any special status or exclusivity, but it (like any foundation of knowledge) flounders along because of the problem of induction (let alone cultural bias). There is no justification for the uniformity of nature of induction except pragmatically, and IMO there will never be a theory that justifies them. To me that means knowledge in the strong sense of a justified, true belief is not possible.

I'll leave the clarifying in the article to you. As you know, it's a lot harder to write a clear article than it is to criticize it! hahaha...I doubledog dare you to write some more. BTW, it's nice to have another wikipedian with some background in the philosophy of science. You've already helped inform my understanding significantly. B 20:31, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Falsifiability/Archive 1


text:
Executive Order 13233

Executive Order 13233 limited access to the records of former United States Presidents to a higher degree than the previous Order 12667, which it superseded. It was drafted by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Order 13233 revoked which was issued by Ronald Reagan on January 18, 1989.

was partially struck down in October 2007. The order was revoked on January 21, 2009, by Barack Obama's, which essentially restored most of the wording of Order 12667 with some modifications.

Background
In 1974, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, placing the presidential records of Richard Nixon in federal custody to prevent their destruction. The legislative action was intended to reduce secrecy, while allowing historians to perform their responsibilities. In 1972, decades worth of official and unofficial Federal Bureau of Investigation records had been destroyed, upon the death of J. Edgar Hoover, by his longtime secretary, Helen Gandy. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 expanded such protection of historical records, by mandating that the records of former presidents would automatically become the property of the federal government upon their departures from the Oval Office, and then transferred to the Archivist of the United States, thereafter to be made available to the public after no more than 12 years.

Thus, the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:

"Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H. W. Bush."

This instruction was repeated on June 6, 2001, before the 90 days had elapsed, giving a new deadline of August 31, 2001. On the day of this deadline, Alberto Gonzales instructed the Archivist to wait a few additional weeks. On November 1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, limiting the access to the records of former U.S. Presidents: "...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases..."

Criticism
The Society of American Archivists and the American Library Association were critical of the president's exercise of executive power by issuing EO 13233. They claimed that the action "violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in ," noting that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation."

John Wertman, a member of former President Bill Clinton's White House staff, wrote an op-ed piece critical of the executive order that appeared in The Washington Post on February 26, 2006. Wertman asserted that Order 13233 "represents a wholesale change in the way the federal government preserves and promotes our national public memory." He also included a quote from former President Gerald Ford on the topic: "I firmly believe that after X period of time, presidential papers, except for the most highly sensitive documents involving our national security, should be made available to the public, and the sooner the better."

Response
Before January 21, 2009, there were three separate attempts to repeal Order 13233. In 2002, shortly after Order 13233 went into effect, a bipartisan group of U.S. House of Representatives members, led by Stephen Horn (R-CA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote and debated a bill aimed at repealing Order 13233, thereby restoring Order 12667 to full force and effect. The bill passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which was chaired by Burton at the time, but never saw floor action.

On March 1, 2007, a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform held a hearing on bill, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007. This bill was also introduced by Waxman, and its goal was again to void Order 13233. At the hearing, several historians argued that Order 13233 has severely curtailed public access to presidential records and added to delays in obtaining materials from presidential libraries. The bill was reported favorably by the full committee, and on March 14, 2007, the House passed the bill in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 333–93. The bill also passed on June 13, 2007, in a Senate committee, but was never brought to the floor for a vote, reportedly due to a hold placed on the measure by Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). As a result, the bill died when the 110th Congress ended.

On January 7, 2009, the House of the 111th Congress passed, introduced by Edolphus Towns (D-NY), section 3 of which would, if enacted, negate Order 13233. The bill was co-sponsored by Dan Burton (R-IN), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), William Clay (D-MO), and Brad Sherman (D-CA). The bill died in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Lawsuit
In November 2001, the National Security Archive, the American Historical Association and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the D.C. District Court against the National Archives and Records Administration and the Archivist, claiming constitutional problems with the order, and pointing out that "access to materials may be delayed for an unlimited period of time after the expiration of the 12-year restriction period while a former president and the incumbent president ‘review’ materials proposed for release", because of § 3(b) of the order, which states "After receiving the records he requests, the former President shall review those records as expeditiously as possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester during this period of review or when requested by the former President to extend the time for review." While most of the lawsuit was found to be nonjusticiable at this time due to lack of ripeness, in October 2007 the Court held that "the Archivist’s reliance on § 3(b) of Executive Order 13,233 is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act" and enjoined "the Archivist from further relying on § 3(b) of Executive Order 13,233". The rest of the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice.

Revocation
On January 21, 2009, Executive Order 13233 was revoked by executive order of President Barack Obama. Obama essentially restored the wording of Executive Order 12667, by repeating most of the text of that order with minor changes. One notable change is that vice presidential records are explicitly covered by his new order.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Executive Order 13233


text:
Cesare Bendinelli

Cesare Bendinelli (c.1542–1617) was an Italian trumpeter who was the principal trumpet player of the Viennese court from 1567 to 1580.

Bendinelli was born in Verona, Italy. From 1580 till his death he played for the court of Munich, Bavaria (now part of Germany), where he died.

Bendinelli was also the author of the first known course of published trumpet lessons, Tutta L'arte Della Trombetta (c. 1614) which gathered together the earliest known pieces for the clarino register, dating from 1584 to 1588. He also authored Rotta Ò Sonata (probably his most famous piece). A version of this piece, arranged by Michael Curran and orchestrated by Geoff Knorr was used in Sid Meier's Civilization V: Brave New World as the theme for Enrico Dandolo, leader of Venice.

title: Cesare Bendinelli


text: File:Trippin.jpg

title: File:Trippin.jpg


text:
User:Random toronto

This is supposed to be a personal page, Not an Encyclopedia Page. Any non-user links please refer here.

Personal Note to 1111:

Yes, I am this strange. I just wanted to talk to you, and I'm not very good at randomly making friends. I say randomly because I have to be selective about my friends. It has to do with my 'unusual disorders'- most people do not understand what it means to live inside of your own mind, while the rest of the world goes on oblivious. I have at least a few disorders, but I am 'socially' stable (which is unusual). These include Schizophrenia, Aspergers and a tossed salad of Depressive mood disorders. But I swear you'd just think I was odd if you met me. Now that I think of it, that's probably exactly what you thought about me. I gave the card to you because you accidently talked while you passed me. I'm asuming you have Pschz or something. I don't want you to go off your dose or anything- I just don't have many friends who have any idea what's going on inside my head. I like the idea of meeting other people who at least know what it's like to 'see the world (very) differently'. More than anything else, I'm looking for a friend- online is fine, but in person would be nice. It's very difficult for me to have friends, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try.

I'd appreciate some written turn-down, or any response. You can just edit anywhere here. I know all about statistics, and the fact that I shouldn't set my hopes on random people. Something about beating the odds, and the fact that there aren't many people like me. I like to take it as a challenge- I wonder if it's the same with you?

I work a steady job, I'm not violent and I have no criminal record. I'd really like it if you'd ask me some kind of question, or ICQ me @ 304474630 pheadrus. I'd really just like to give you an idea of who I am, and let you judge. You know what I look like, so internet wise, this is working backwards, sort of. If you think I'm too sketchy (which I'm very used to) then we never ever have to meet.

Thanks for your time.

Geoff

I'm currently writing a book. Ask me about it (caption: breaking ice).

title: User:Random toronto


text:
Talk:Star Fox 64

Lock-on laser and Star Wolf
i don't think the Blue-Marine attack sub on Aquas has the lock-on laser. Instead it had unlimited homing torpedos that wrk just as well. On multiplayer mode you can't use the lock-on laser either if you are on foot. But it says in the gameplay section that all vehicles can use the lock-on laser. Oh yeah. It is also worth noting that you will fight Star Wolf at least once regardless of what path you take through the game.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.56.24.130 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Classification
Personally, I'd class it as an on-rails shooter. Any reason why the current scrolling shooter is more accurate? --Nick R 22:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a toss-up, I guess. While most of the game is on-rails, there is some freedom is some levels. I would just put it in the shooter game category. Thunderbrand 23:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

World speed record
What's the source for the world speed record info? Silverfish 22:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Can't find anything on the internet about it. I guess it should be removed then if no sources can be found. Thunderbrand 03:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed this, as I can't find a reference anywhere either. I have tracked down a couple of references to a Carl Hesler of Brookings, South Dakota.  There an article about a spelling bee, where he finished third: .  There is also a webpage called The Unofficial book of nerd records, where he is mentioned a number of times, including "Galaga High Score with feet".Silverfish 17:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems kinda easy; I got appx. 33 min on Expert mode :D . And when I say approxamately, I mean using my computer clock and cutting out a 15 min dinner break... The other one, though, on normal mode; five minutes away, not counting cinemas... DarkLink Metroid 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The current records posted are according to the best speedrunning site on the web, speeddemosarchive.com. I also go by Psonar on that site and I've recently submitted some new speedruns which are in verification right now.  When they are posted as official records at SDA, I'll make the update here.  My record will replace Mike "TSA" Damiani's 27:29 with a 25:41.  I've also completed 2 other runs: an Expert 100% run which collects all 15 medals in Expert Mode in a single sitting in 1:24:51 and an Expert Redline Run which completes the final ending of the game on the most advanced path (commonly called the "redline" path) in 35:30.  These runs are all on the NTSC version, so SuperCoolAl's time won't be affected.  When my run's are approved at SDA, I might need some help updating wikipedia, but that's my input for now. [I didn't know how to sign this message several days ago, so I'm signing it now]Psonar 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * My speedruns have come out at Speed Demos Archive and I updated the Speedrunning section of the article to reflect this. If anyone would like to improve the formatting of that section since I'm not very fluent in wikipedia tags, then feel free! Psonar 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Carl Hesler here. This was me as a teenager seeking fame and thinking I was worthy of it. (Actually it might have been one of my friends trying to make me famous.) Glad somebody could easily beat my records! 174.255.2.115 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

iQue?
It seems Star Fox 64 was ported to the iQue thingy in China. IGN lists it, but I can't find any other info about it, such as the date it was released. Anyone else find anything? Thunderbrand 00:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * N-sider says it was released in China on November 21, 2003. Also, if you go to this site  and click on "more...", there is a screenshot of the title screen of Star Fox 64 on the iQue, which says "© 1997-2003 Nintendo © 2003 iQue", confirming that it was released in 2003. Jaxl 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Thunderbrand 01:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

1. http :// www.ique.com/news_games.htm and http :// www.ique.com/news.htm (2003-2009), through web.archive.org, wrote:
 * "2003.11.18 iQue神游机火热上市，五款精品游戏同步发售！"

resp.
 * "2003.11.18 iQue PLAYER优惠套装上海试卖，五款精品游戏同步发售！"

I can't speak Chinese, but that should mean something like
 * "18.11.2003 [i.e. 18 November 2003]: iQue Player and 5 games were released" (iQue神游机 = iQue PLAYER = iQue Player; 五=5),

which might look like a release on 18.11.2003 but also could mean that it was released a few days before 18.11.2003. 2. http :// home.donews.com/donews/article/5/54858.html (19.11.2003) wrote:
 * "11月17日记者获悉，任天堂“神游机”已经在上海市场出现. " & "《玛莉医生》、《超级玛莉》、《塞尔达》、《星际火狐》、《水上摩托》",

which through google translator is
 * "November 17, reporters learned, Nintendo "iQue" has appeared in the Shanghai market." & ""Dr. Mary", "Super Mario", "Zelda", "Star Fox", "Watercraft"",

which should mean
 * "17.11.[2003], reporters learned, [that] iQue Player has appeared in the Shanghai marked." [in the text it's actually Nintendo, Chinese and Japanese 任天堂] & ""Dr. Mario 64, Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Star Fox 64 / Lylat Wars and Wave Race 64"".

3. In iQue Player it states it was released on 17.11.2003. 4. At http :// www.ique.com/aboutiQue/ique.htm it's
 * "03年12月 第一款硬件iQue神游机发售",

which could mean something like
 * "12.2003 [i.e. December 2003]: Console iQue Player released",

but that should be wrong and should just be a rounding error. So: iQue Player and Star Fox 64 / Lylat Wars should have been released on 17.11.2003, or maybe 18.11.2003. Though maybe the release at 17.11.2003 was a release before the official release date and not a generall release. Maybe someone who can speak Chinese can translate it proper and then can tell more. Also for other iQue dates etc.: de:Diskussion:IQue. -91.63.229.28 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do_A_Barrel_Roll
why is "Do_A_Barrel_Roll" redirected to this acticle?
 * So someone wouldn't go and create a whole article about a quote from a video game. Thunderbrand 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There are many quotes that link to articles, and this is in fact very useful. Suppose someone has heard of and knows of a particular famous quote, but does not know where it originated.  That person could enter the quote into the search box and find out exactly where it originated.  The reader may even gain newfound interest in the subject as well, and could end up vaing a valuable contributor to Wikipeadia.  Therefore, the reference will stay active.  Stovetopcookies 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Makes sense, "Do a barrel roll" is on the List of Internet Memes.

 * Please sign your posts with four tildes "~" (Shift + the key to the left of "1"). Stovetopcookies 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Remeber there is a page for All your base are belong to us. Why not one for do a barrel roll? ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willy105 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

 * I would assume because AYB has had actual real life impact, coverages, established notability, etc.
 * Interestingly, it's a former FA. How on Earth that happened is beyond me, looking at the article.76.24.125.96 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be a section on the meme, or at the very least a sentence in the opening paragraph about it. In fact, I'll add that now. Zrowny (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Movie refs.
Since it was removed, here are some links where they are referenced...

 *
 *
 *

I will re-add them and properly cite them later. Thunderbrand 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Taken care of.  Rob ert  02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thunderbrand 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if reviews establish those references as objective facts... The Star Wars references were probably intentional, but the music sounding like Independence Day is possibly a subjective thing. --DJH47 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Trademark Issue
Please can anyone expand on the trademark issue which forced StarFox 64 to be renamed Lylat Wars in Europe and Australasia? 87.240.131.180 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is more at Star Fox (Atari 2600). Thunderbrand 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article
I went ahead and added a whole bunch to the Gameplay section.

The biggest things, I think, that need changing are the different Routes sections. We don't need a level-by-level walkthrough of the game, just a summary of the main plot points and an explanation of how the route-choosing system works.

Once that's taken care of I think we should nominate this article for Featured Article status. -- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't at FA status yet. There's a bucketload* of original research that needs to be gotten rid of or sourced, and (like you say) there's excessive amounts of text on the different routes. A section on the game's development wouldn't hurt either. Nor would doubling the number of references -- Steel 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) *May not actually be a bucketload, but there is some.
 * Hey, if you can figure out a better way to format the routes, then please go ahead and fix them. They had to be the biggest problem for me when I helped get this article up to GA status. Though make sure we don't simply go back to bullet points.
 * As for development, I'll see if I can help work on a section for that this weekend.  Rob ert  22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we have an absolutely colossal section on routes anyway? -- Steel 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we reference a lot of the information if it's just from playing the game? The only source I can think of citing is the instruction manual.

 * About formatting the Routes sections, is it necessary that we have them? We might only need an explanation of how it works in the Gameplay section and the picture of the map.-- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They're probably not necessary, though since there's so many different paths the story can take, they were just the best idea I had at the time. So to answer your question Steel, I got carried away with turning bullet points into prose, since I think prose is preferred.
 * And I don't see a big problem with citing from the instruction manual a lot. Take a look at the amount of refs from Star Fox Adventures manual.  Rob ert  23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have an instruction manual, so somebody who has one please do the references.-- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The instruction manual is available on www.arwinglanding.net I believe... as well as other information on the game. The site is a Star Fox series fansite. [I didn't know how to sign a few days ago so I'm signing now] Psonar 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Routes
I think I might have a good solution to most of the problems with the Routes sections, I have a copy of my idea of how it should be here

If we agree with it we can just move it over here and change anything that needs improvement. -- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This game's story is almost nonexistant and can be summed up in two or three paragraphs. -- Steel 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i disagree, the game's story is important to the article. I honestly think the article i wrote above sums it up pretty well.-- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the story is unimportant (though come to think of it, it is), I said there's hardly any there to tell. Lylat System gets invaded, Star Fox comes in to save the day. -- Steel 23:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So is my version too long? You can shorten it wherever you think it's necessary
 * Unless somebody tells me otherwise, I'm going to put my version into the article tomorrow-- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There we go. . -- Steel 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but I think you're version actually is better. I just fixed some grammar and junk and then put it into the article.-- 3000zebs -(talk to me) 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for reverting your edit without reading the talk page thoroughly first, but I just don't know that deleting over 10 paragraphs of data will help the push to FA status. It was already GA status with the thick routes section, and there are plenty of FA-class articles that are as descriptive.  If you are insistent on the changes discussed, I will not interfere further.  Just want to throw my opinion out there.  Maybe go through FAC with the big Routes section and find out what they think. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The GA process is broken, even terrible articles can become GAs on the whim of one editor who may not even be a very good editor. And I don't know about Zebs, but I am insistent on these changes. -- Steel 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone is still interested in improving this article for the sake of the game and the article regardless of wikipedia status, then I'd be glad to help as I'm able. I'm very knowledgable in the game.  I hold high score records, speedrun records, and have done a low score run and actively follow many sites concerning this game including Gamefaqs/Gamespot, Arwing Landing, Speed Demos Archive, N64 High Scores, CyberScore, Twin Galaxies, neoseeker, youtube, and anywhere I can find activity concerning the game.  I don't know enough about wikipedia to tackle this myself, but I can help someone who's willing.Psonar 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural refs.
I think we need to do some cleanup on the "cultural references" section. Aside from being a list, half of them are unsourced and mainly function as a trivia section. A few of them aren't really that notable to be mentioned, such as the recently added part about the Death Star and ROTJ. Thunderbrand 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the bit about the arwing twisting and diving in the same way as the falcon in empire strikes back is too vague to be in here. just because it twists and dives doesn't mean its a reference to ESB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.61.8.39 (talk • contribs).

Planets
We need information on the planets of the Lylat System. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * There is a List of Star Fox planets and locations. Thunderbrand 17:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Transformers
"Do a Barrel Roll" was one of many proposed snippets of dialogue to be said by Optimus Prime in the Transformers movie, as part of an online contest. Is that worth mentioning, or does the fact that it's only a potential reference (as opposed to an actual reference) make it too obscure to bother putting in the article? 71.127.200.35 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a little too obscure. There is enough trivia anyway. Thunderbrand 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds important to me. If that happens, then it's worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willy105 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Speed Run Section....?
Is this section even needed in this article? Most articles about games do not have speed run information. It seems a bit silly to post someone's time records on an encyclopedia article. Other articles just offer it in their external references section instead of creating an entire section for it. Self promotion by user? Shao-Yoshi

 * I tend to agree. How important is speedrunning, really? Is it picked up on a consistent basis by the mainstream gaming press?--Nydas (Talk) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Typically it is mainly discussed in online communities and forums such as the speed demos archives website. It isn't really related to the article, nor does it add anything to it and it makes the article seem like a fan-made wiki entry. If more gaming articles contain speed runs sections, then it should be fine, but because currently this is not the case, it doesn't seem suitable. A section on speedruns could be replaced with a more credible section on the game's soundtrack etc. Shao-Yoshi

 * I'm the person with most of the speedrun records for this game and when I accomplished those records there was already a speedrun section in the article, so I edited it to reflect the progress I had made - I was not intending to self-promote, but to update the facts. Many in the online gaming community would say that speedruns are important because they are a type of video gaming world record.  I think that a minor reference to the record site for speedrunning (speeddemosarchive.com/StarFox64.html) and high scores (geocities.com/n64highscores/StarFox64.html) would be appropriate.  Also speedruns at Speed Demos Archive are documented by video footage, as are some of the game's high score accomplishments.  References to such videos would add to the quality of any video game article. Psonar 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert on January 19, 2007
I have reverted the following edit.

 * Recently, Scott Ramsoomair, creator of the webcomic VGCats, has created a webcomic of Starfox, between Fox and Falco, consisting of a legitimate dialogue using only quotes from Starfox 64, found here: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=223

The reason for this is that the section of the article this was in is about cultural references in the game, not about other material making refrences to this game. JONJONAUG 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Second Person - Story Section
I noticed a notification at the top of this article saying that it contained inappropriate use of first or second person, so I searched and found the word "you" used at the end of the story section in the spoiler about the Area 6 to Venom route. I corrected it to be third person, but I think the writing could still use improvement. Psonar 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Voice Actors?
A little surprized to not see a voice actor section. Is this becuase its hard to find the actors? Yes, some of their actors is list on the character article, but it would still to have a section. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Promo Video
A better source than YouTube is needed for the StarFox 64 promo video. I know the video is true as I was a subscriber of Nintendo Power back then and received the video too. However, following WP:YOUTUBE, a better source is needed since the video is originally copyrighted by Nintendo. Douglasr007 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment - On hold
As part of the GA Project quality task force, I am reviewing previously passed GA article. I'm placing this GA on hold because there are several issues. If these issues are not addressed, the page may be delisted. -- David Fuchs ( talk ) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourcing- there are too many unsourced statements: for example: "Nintendo Power subscribers received a promotional video prior to Star Fox 64's release (the same tactic was used to promote Donkey Kong Country for the SNES as well as Hey You, Pikachu! for the N64) ", "After the credits, there is a bill from Star Fox (as they are mercenaries) which presents the number of enemies killed and multiplies it by 64, resulting in the amount of money due. General Pepper (who is offscreen) receives a statement based on the price (which varies from the number of enemies killed). If the price is below $70,000 he will say, "This is one steep bill....but it's worth it." The second thing he says, if the price is over $70,000, is, in a rather shocked tone, "Whaat?!" Then the player presses a button to stamp the bill, thus bringing the player back to the Main Menu.", "The music in Star Fox 64 was composed by Koji Kondo and Hajime Wakai. Some of this music was used in the later games of the series.", "The game relies much more heavily on dialogue than the original, and together with the cinematic sequences, they drive the story forward. This dialogue has also become the target of parody in recent years, especially the repetitive phrases of Peppy Hare, particularly the phrase "Do a barrel roll!".", et al.
 * Cleanup- besides some grammar issues, some layout problems as well. Why does 'Vehicles' randomly come after 'Multiplayer'?
 * As these concerns have not been addressed, I have delisted the article. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice actors
An IP user added the following list to the article. As it has holes in it, I'm moving it to here until someone can clean it up and make a decision on where in the article it should be included (if at all):

—Politizer talk / contribs 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike West as Fox McCloud, Bill Grey, Wolf O'Donnell
 * Rick May as
 * Lyssa Browne as Slippy Toad, Katt Monroe
 * David Frederick White as
 * Jason Alexander as
 * Bill Johnson as Falco Lombardi, Leon Powalski
 * Isaac Marshall as Peppy Hare
 * James Cissel as

Star Fox 64 3D
When we get more pictures and the box art of Star Fox 64 3D should we move Star Fox 64 3D to a new page or leave it on this page. 24.115.88.249 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should move it to its own page. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D has its own page. Why shouldn't Star Fox 64 3D? dogman15 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pepper's choke if you reach a really high bill
I noticed that the article now has the statement that if in the game, you reach a 1000,000 dollar bill, General Pepper will choke. I've never encountered this even after having this game for over a decade now, and I even ended up searching for it on YouTube to see if it's actually done, but no, there's nothing. But there is a source that says he does do it here » http://www.modojo.com/features/20110902/649/star_fox_13_facts_you_probably_didnt_know/ I don't know what to believe, but at the same time I'm just itching to see the truth behind this. • GunMetal Angel  04:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Katina references Independence Day
Apparently the level is one big parody of Independence Day AerobicFox (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The resemblance is obvious, but unless the similarity has been pointed out in a reliable source (not someone's comment in a forum) then it's OR and can't be mentioned in the article.
 * More importantly, it's not worth mentioning in the article anyway, as it's trivia. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gametrailers is, without a doubt, a reliable source, and they seemed to find it relevant enough to do a whole episode on it in their Level series. I am somewhat doubtful that you clicked on the link I provided, otherwise I don't know why you would be linking me to the definition of a reliable source while disparaging forum comments.AerobicFox (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't notice that there was a video; it didn't load when I opened it so I only saw the comments.
 * Anyway, like I said above, regardless of the source, this information is not encyclopedic; it's trivia. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries about the video. About the trivia, the line between "encyclopedic" and "trivia" is subjectively drawn and often difficult to gain consensus on in grey areas. Certainly factoids such as Peppy Hare being the only other character that is able to shot down ally ships on the Katina stage is too unimportant to be worth mentioning, but integrated into a description of the level such as "Katina is one of the few stages that takes place entirely in all-range mode. On Katina Fox must defend a base from an incoming flying saucer and the smaller enemy ships it releases, a scenario that has been called a clear parody of the climax of the movie Independence Day."
 * Unfortunately it seems there is currently no place in the article to integrate this into as Katina is not even mentioned, and I would not support it being introduced as a stand alone factoid. There's no hurry to add this info though, I'll just leave the reference here and if on a later date a consensus can be formed to add it in then it will be added then.AerobicFox (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet meme status
Should this be added to internet memes? At least a few quotes from the game's proper have been referred to constantly as memes on the internet. Renelia Richter (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Star Fox 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060629002707/http://cheats.gamespy.com:80/nintendo-64/star-fox-64/ to http://cheats.gamespy.com/nintendo-64/star-fox-64/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060506175239/http://www.n-sider.com/gameview.php?gameid=44 to http://www.n-sider.com/gameview.php?gameid=44
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070425194836/http://au.gamespot.com:80/wii/action/starfox64/review.html to http://au.gamespot.com/wii/action/starfox64/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the GA nom
When this article was demoted from GA status years ago, it had a problem with chunks of it not being backed up by sources, and that is still the case. I'm just telling you this right now before someone decides to do a proper review of it - if those sourcing problems are not solved, this article cannot be promoted, so you may want to take care of that now (and if you think it may take some time, it's totally fair to withdraw the nomination while you work on it). Best, --AlexandraIDV 10:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, when the page was demoted over 10 years ago, the individual who demoted it identified a number of statements that lacked sources. One of the first things that I did in trying to clean up the article was to either (a) add sourcing or (b) remove the sentence for each of the instances that person identified.  Can you please elaborate on what portions of the article you think still lack appropriate sourcing?  I had several others users informally review the article and no one else expressed concern with sourcing.  So it would be helpful if you could be more specific in what you think needs to be addressed.  Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 * , I withdrew the nomination for now so that we can address this issue. Please do let me know what issues you have.  Thanks. DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Several sentences or clusters of sentences just do not have any reference attached to them, such as
 * "The Blue-Marine can upgrade its twin lasers, but it cannot make use of Smart Bombs. It makes up for this with an unlimited supply of torpedoes which not only damage enemies but also produce bright bursts of light, allowing the player to see in the ocean depths. The torpedoes can also lock-on to enemies just as the charged up lasers can in the other vehicles. The submersible also has a shot-deflecting barrel roll in addition to boost and brake capabilities."
 * and "Recognizing that the Nintendo 64 would launch the following year with significantly increased processing power and graphical capabilities, Miyamoto made the decision to cancel Star Fox 2 in favor of developing a new Star Fox game for the Nintendo 64."
 * This happens the most in the gameplay section.--AlexandraIDV 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to this party, but how are we generally supposed to source descriptions of gameplay? They are rote descriptions of what can be observed in the game, and are usually not separately documented outside of strategy wikis and instruction manuals. Same thing with plots. Discussions about WHY or HOW something was implemented, what its cultural impact was, design decisions, etc., do always need to be sourced, but basic descriptions of gameplay, plotlines, etc., are usually not particularly sourceable. (That said, what you quoted there is probably too much detail for this article anyway.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Star Fox 64


text: Category:Operas by George Gershwin

title: Category:Operas by George Gershwin


text:
Paul Beyerl

Rev. Paul Beyerl, (pronounced "bye'-rul") born 1945 in Owen, Wisconsin, was known as an author and educator, and particularly as a Wiccan priest, in Wiccan and neopagan circles.

Biography
Rev. Paul and Rev. Gerry Beyerl, his partner since 1993, resided on an 11 acre property in    southeast Minnesota just west of Houston, Minnesota. The property is known as The Hermit’s Grove and is a retreat and educational center for The Rowan Tree Church and The Hermit's Grove. It houses the administrative offices, guest lodging for Church Members and students, a 4500-book research library, and the herbal area holding more than 200 species of dried botanicals. The Rowan Tree Church is Wiccan, representing The Tradition of Lothloriën. Beyerl founded both in the 1970s when living in Minneapolis. The Rowan Tree Church trains its clergy in The Mystery School, a challenging and in-depth educational program. Both the Church and Mystery School serve Church Members and students living both near the center and at great distances. The Tradition is discussed at length in Beyerl’s book A Wiccan Bardo, Revisited.

The Hermit's Grove, incorporated in 1994 as a separate nonprofit organization supportive of the    Church, was merged into The Rowan Tree Church in 2011. The Hermit's Grove includes the publishing house for the Church, and the Master Herbalist Program, an extensive study in botanical medicine. Beyerl was known as a Master Herbalist and taught programs in herbal medicine since the 1970s. In addition to numerous appearances throughout the U.S., Beyerl taught in Canada and Portugal.

Beyerl passed away at his home in Houston, Minnesota on December 30, 2021.

Publications
Beyerl began publishing a Wiccan newsletter - The Unicorn - in 1977. It is now among the longest-published Wiccan newsletters in North America, in continuous publication since 1977.

Discography

 *  The Arts of Healing - Lecture on cassette (ACE)
 * Initiation and Initiatory Orders (Panel Discussion with Ian Corrigan, Liafal, and Donald Michael Kraig) (ACE)

title: Paul Beyerl


text: User talk:69.157.16.104

title: User talk:69.157.16.104


text:
Macaye

Macaye (Makea) is a commune in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department in south-western France.

Neighboring communes

 * Hasparren to the north
 * Cambo-les-Bains to the north-west
 * Mendionde to the east
 * Louhossoa to the west
 * Bidarray to the south

title: Macaye