30
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 129:
Line 129: + + + + + +
→I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...
Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.
I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.
Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.
== Question on the Bible reference ==
== Question on the Bible reference ==