Talk:Buttered cat paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-03-28. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3/9/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG Buttered cat paradox was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

[edit] this is ridiculous

This is a very silly article and I'm not sure if it is what WP is, but this part in particular is not IMO something WP should have: "If actually carried out, however, the buttered cat experiment will usually result in the cat landing on its feet with the buttered side of the toast facing upwards. This can be taken as evidence that the tendency for cats to land on their feet is stronger than the tendency for toast to land buttered-side-down."

I would guess that the cat would land on its feet more often than the toast on the butter in this case, but isn't this crystal ballery unless a reason can be given or a person cited? Additionally, if that were to happen, I'm not sure it would be evidence of the tendencies asserted. It's like comparing apples and oranges strapped to apples. Шизомби 14:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Logic suggests the cognisant cat would use its knowledge of rotational forces (it's ability to self-right) to actively ensure it lands on its feet. The non-cognisant toast can't force itself to land butterside down (that's due to passive rotational forces, and the fact most toast slices fall small distances), and so the cat will win out, if enough height is given for it to do it.
I'd pull out my old Dr Karl Kruzelnicki (sp?) books, which actually explain why toast falls butterside down and cats land on their feet, but referencing would be a pain.

I'm sorry, but how is a silly internet debate with no bearing on reality actually notable? This kind of thing is fine for Uncyclopedia or other humor web sites, but if Wikipedia wants itself taken seriously, this should not be on Wikipedia. Basically, if this is not deleted, I will consider it as Wikipedia giving me a big 'OK' to vandalize other pages by adding similar silliness. --136.176.96.47 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) NMS

Is that blackmail? Remove this or I will vandalize? It is ironic how you are so critical of the existence of this article but take such liberties with your own behaviour. S Sepp 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And I have heard the buttered-toast-and-cat mechanism described as a joke — long before I came across the article here.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It (this article) seriously gives a brief list and description of thought experiments undertaken in regards to this topic. It's a serious discussion of a non-serious subject. If you require an example of how this sort of article could be important, think of a basic class in logic or philosophy, perhaps geared towards children. While being amusing, it can also stimulate critical thought. Khono 06:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned on mythbusters... Notable enough... --193.140.194.104 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) this makes a mockery of WP, the same article is on uncyclopedia, and uncyclopedia is included as one of its references, this serves as no knowledge to anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igottwopeepees (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I note the last result of a nomination for deletion was 'no censensus' . Then we should perhaps try again in some time? How long to wait before we ask again? It's a year ago tomorrow. Thats not being disruptive...Greswik 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This theory was mentioned on a variety of shows, including mythbusters I belive.. --193.140.194.104 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems people are still arguing both sides. Why would you want to remove this article, anyway? It's not hurting anything by being here, right? Khono 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's fake, it's not real, it serves no educational value or information value, and as it has been mentioned time and time again, the almost exact same article can be found on uncyclopedia and other wikipedia knock-offs. Doesn't really say much for the real wikipedia by keeping it around. (24.171.81.191 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
Please note, there was a decision to keep in the latest AfD in March of 2007, where the nominator essentially used your reasoning. Feel free to check the AfD for the counter-arguements that were presented. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


There is a fair amount of junk on wikipedia, mostly in the form of articles on fiction, art, trivia sections, popular culture sections and so on. This article OTOH serves the useful purpose of stimulating basic debate, and presenting it in an engaging way, thus encouraging learning of real life skills.

Of course its not on a par with scholarly articles, but I'd say it deserves its place - far more so than a whole lot of other stuff on wiki. Tabby (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be kept. Even though it is nnonsense, it is pretty interesting and says that Wikipedia is pretty extendable if it talks about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouMoo! (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

The link "lands buttered side down." doesn't go to the trivia anchor in the toast article, for it (the trivia section) no longer seemingly exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Prod Removed

Hi there. I've removed the prod tag, following the addition of another print reference (see Science Askew). There are probably more references that can be found if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfigura (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)