Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Aristotle on Genus/Difference?

The article Genus-differentia definition is evidently part of the series of Aristotelianism. Unfortunately, at present, Aristotle is mentioned only in the most tangential and trivial fashion.

I don't propose making Aristotle the focus of this article, since it (sensibly) aims at a discussion of genus-difference in its modern form. This form seems pretty different that Aristotle's ideas since, as I understand it, Aristotle believed that the genus was more or less naturally given, whereas modern writers (like Copi) point out that from a purely logical viewpoint, the genus and difference are literally interchangeable. That is, in terms of the logic alone, one may as well take "rational thing" as the genus and "is an animal" as the difference in the definition of man as rational animal.

But I think that any treatment of this form of definition needs at least a word or two on its historical origins and Aristotle's philosophy. I am not familiar, however, with this aspect of Aristotelianism and hence would appreciate contributions from someone else on the matter. I'm thinking a short section on the topic would suffice, perhaps with a word or two of how attitudes have shifted over the centuries.

Any takers? Phiwum (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional input desperately needed at Free will

There is an editor over at Free will who has been tendentiously pushing to have some nonsense about non-physicalist metaphysical libertarianism being defined by "freely choosing to believe whether or not a soul exists". He has been pushing this for over a year now, and works on no other topics, lurking for weeks and then coming back to make the change again when nobody's looking, and I have been arguing with him the entire time trying to get him to even make clear what the hell his point is. It began as some pseudo-religious POV-pushing in the lede and has now boiled down to this nonsense about one paragraph about one kind of metaphysical libertarianism, but he still seems extremely confused and yet insistent on his point. Nevertheless he seems to be honestly trying to make some point, and I don't just want to get into a revert war with him. The few other editors who have commented before have expressed similar dismay with understanding what he's even trying to say, but for the most part there's nobody active at that article besides me and him. I'd really love to have some experienced editors come and give their say to try to sort this all out!

Current talk section link:

Relevant past talk sections:

Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

More input requested at RSN

There is a discussion here which could use more comments. Thanks! un☯mi 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Help request

Genus–differentia definition: There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk page concerning several things.

  • 1)- The current title name. There was given valid suggestions but there are more severe problems.
  • 2)- The use of a Wikipedia user name in the article. During discussions one challenged entry was multiplied to 14 instances of the same name.
  • 3)- The use of a reference that does not support content of the article.
I tagged the article and some discussion ensued that resulted in improvements according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Two items were; the title name that did not appear to reflect a common name (suggestions provided at the bottom of the article), and article sectioning. There is still a lot of work as there is no history section and others such as a possible etymology section.
The use of a Wikipedia user name in the body of the article is against more than one policy and during discussions this was increased to 14. The main thing I had problems with was that the content of the article is not supported by the reference. This is a serious problem as discussions will show, and I feel the discussion went circular and stagnant.
If some editors could take the time to look at the article and title, the one reference and use as related to the article, and the user name that is used in the article multiple times, I would appreciate it. Otr500 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand many of your criticisms. I might prefer "Definition by genus and difference", but the title is okay. The use of a user name in an article is unusual and might even be criticized on grounds of taste, but is surely not a very deep concern. The article definitely requires more references (which are surely easy to provide!), but the reference used here is not irrelevant. The authors wanted to refer to a very well-known example of this sort of definition, and they gave a reference to the classical appearance of this example.
The article could surely be improved, and there is some concern about OR violations (the multiplicity section consists of some fairly simple observations, but may well violate WP:OR), but some of your criticisms are baffling. In particular, you've added a notability tag to the article! This form of definition is a fairly standard part of every critical thinking course that includes a discussion of the types and uses of definitions. Phiwum (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Theosophy This lead topic in Metaphysics has been somewhat highjacked by a group of people who believe that the only Theosophy was that of the Blavatsky-Schools. I have been trying to get their page renamed - possibly to Theosophy (Blavatsky-Schools), or other. However - this appears contentious, since the Theosophical Societies somehow believe that they own the word. The Encyclopedia of Religion makes a strong distinction that Theosophy is not the Theosophical Societies. I am trying to get this fixed. The lead Page "Theosophy" really belongs in the Philosophy section of Metaphysics. In any case this is a violation of the first Pillar of Wikipedia, as I see it. They are attached to that name and seem to be squatting on it some. Guidance appreciated. JEMead (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I might add that Theosophy has both Science/Metaphysics and Religion elements. perhaps it is a joint project. Currently the trend in Theosophy is to focus on Physics/Ontology/Brain-Mind etc. Metaphysics seems more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEMead (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(meaning of "reject" in philosophy) Clarification regarding term of art

Hi, I could use some input on how we might present the meaning of "reject" within the field of philosophy in plain English. un☯mi 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You can check the literature on tests of a hypothesis in the philosophy of classical mathematical statistics literature for sources. PPdd (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Current Science is based on modeling

I don't see that here (philo-sci).--John Bessa (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Strict conditional

Eyes on Strict conditional, please. User:Hanlon1755 created Conditional statement (logic) and then nominated Strict conditional, an existing article, for deletion. That debate is now closed as withdrawn. Conditional statement (logic) now redirects to Strict conditional. Hanlon1755 has "revamped" Strict conditional and is now engaged in a slow burning edit war with an IP who wants to revert to the original status - the IP has argued on the talk page that Hanlon1755's edits are off topic for the article. Those with knowledge of this area, please intervene. Fences&Windows 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. (Keep current revised version). I will point out that by now in Talk:Strict conditional, I have addressed each and every concern 202.124.72.22 (talk) has raised. The IP has yet to do the same for me. The IP's talk in Talk:Strict conditional is strong evidence that suggests the IP has failed to look at, or at least understand, the cited sources given in the main article. For example, the IP stated that the source "Larson, Boswell, et al. 2007" does not deal with strict conditionals, when a look at the content, especially the cited page numbers, reveal this is incorrect. Furthermore, the IP has failed to state explicitly, as requested, even one sentence in my revision that the IP finds wrong. Every single claim is backed up with notable, respectable, published references that even include page numbers. Many claims are backed by more than one citation. The "original status" of the article was incomplete: that is what motivated my editions. Nothing I have added contradicts what was in the "original status" of the article. I have only added details to the article to make the notions of "conditional statement," "strict conditional," and "material conditional," clear to the reader so that they are less confusing and easier to understand. These details are not "off topic for the article," they are essential details that the reader needs in order to come to a full understanding of the material without confusion. Without these necessary details, the article becomes very ambiguous. This is especially so considering there are other types of "conditionals" and "implications" to which the reader may relate. The contender, 202.124.72.22 is also masking behind a random IP, unwilling to take responsibilities for its ungrounded claims. I, on the other hand, am a registered user of Wikipedia, and am willing to take full responsibility for all my edits, claims, and contributions to the site. I strongly recommend keeping the current (revised) version of the article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Did this suddenly become an AfD rather than a WikiProject discussion area or something? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it did not. Hanlon1755 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An RM of interest: the computer game called "Eidos"

Editors may be interested in this requested move. NoeticaTea? 22:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Help needed stating Wikipedia Secondary Source Paradox

A logical inconsistency can often (always?) be reformulted in the form of a pradox. Can anyone help with such a formulation on the talk page of Wikipedia:Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law related articles? PPdd (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help wanted: Looking for Meta-Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented

Help wanted: Looking for Meta-Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented at Talk:Marsden motion#Meta Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented. PPdd (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

protoscience

This article (Protoscience) needs professional help. In my opinion it should list scientific disciplines and explain when they became a formal science. In stead it tends to focus on current protoscience which is a controversial topic.

The article use to look like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protoscience&oldid=464537545

We use to have a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_protosciences&oldid=2241750

The Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard recently decided to delete it[1] but I understand it is part of "the philosophy of science".

Any advice would be helpful.

talk:Protoscience

84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename of category

Proposed move of History_books_about_philosophy

Folks, could you take a look at this category name, and my proposal to rename it consistent with all of the others in the philosophy department. I certainly would not like to see a massive restructure that would make it harder to categorize things. Greg Bard (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consolation of Philosophy GAR

Hi, as a related WikiProject, you might be interested to know that the article Consolation of Philosophy is now up for a Good Article Review. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudorationalism

This new article is questionable. Greg Bard (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Park source concerning the Soviet Union is just an undergraduate term paper (although, IMO, fairly well written and researched), and it does not quite establish what it is supposed to concerning religion (although it is not an absurd synthesis, given what glasnost was). Anyway, all the sources that use the term do not appear to be using it in any other way than just applying "pseudo-" in a regular sense to "rational" in a regular sense, just meaning that what they are describing as "pseudorational" has only the pretense of being rational; i.e, the sources don't appear to be referring to any particular, well-defined topic with their mentioning it. The article is best as a redirect to Rationality, and maybe a sentence can be included at that page giving a basic definition of the word referencing the OED at [2] (Sorry, if you don't have OED access, but dictionary.com does not have it). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudorationalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Critique of Pure Reason

Hello. I'm not a member of the philosophy project, however, I was wondering if anyone could help with the Critique of Pure Reason article? Much of it is written in a way that violates WP:NOTESSAY, a problem that gets progressively more serious as the article goes along and is worst in the subsection of First Division: Transcendental Analytic dealing with The Metaphysical Reduction. I believe that much of that section violates WP:NOTESSAY egregiously, and may be flawed beyond redemption. I am considering wiping much of that section, but would like to hear other editors' views of the matter before proceeding with such a potentially controversial move. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II article improvement

The Pope John Paul II article is on peer review. If anyone is interested in improving the article, please do.-- Marek.69 talk 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Philosophy will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in philosophy - as subjects, philosophers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy question

Please see Talk:Fallacy#Fallacy_vs_logical_fallacy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category moves

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_15

There are several proposals to move philosophy categories to namespaces with parenthetical titles. I am strongly opposed to this, and I am wondering if we need to make an organized project effort to do something about the larger issue. It seems to me that philosophy as a discipline and these articles and categories by extention are marginalized, and these parentetical titles are a symptom of this. Doesn't "logical syntax" make more sense than "Syntax (logic)?" Greg Bard (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Without reading the full discussion there yet (just passing by in a rush right now), regarding that one example you give, the only reason I'd see for using either title would be if there are separate articles on the subject of "syntax" in different fields. I would more expect there to be one article on the general subject of syntax, with intermixed discussion on its use in different fields. If the subject matter (i.e. the meaning of the title) differs substantially between fields, then the "syntax (logic)" format is the wikipedia standard way of disambiguating between them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do make your opinion known at the page with the discussion. I will report the results here. However, it will much more difficult to do anything about any problems created once these discussions are closed. At some point I will make a report to WikiProject Philosophy on all the problems in the philosophy department which will require political advocacy to solve. We are not a numerous group here, and the general impression of the hoi polloi prevails over what philosophy academicians think. When something gets screwed up, it tends to stay screwed up. Greg Bard (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Augustinian theodicy FAC

Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy was recently nominated as a Featured Article, which might be of interest to some people in this WikiProject. You can find the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Consequentialism and utilitarianism

There is a large overlap between consequentialism and utilitarianism, which is a form of the former. For example, both articles cover rule consequentialism/utilitarianism, motive consequentialism/utilitarianism, negative consequentialism/utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on consequentialism discusses both topics in the same article, and is our best external link about utilitarianism. The entry discusses utilitarianism and classic utilitarianism without defining the difference between the two. Utilitarianism refers to classic utilitarianism too without defining it. Even consequentialism is problematic and the topic of the SEP entry's "What is Consequentialism?".

In conclusion, while there is clearly a difference between both, the difference is not very clear, and there is clearly a lot of overlap in any case. I am wondering whether the articles should remain separate. --Chealer (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a merge is necessary, but that the two articles should be improved. Utilitarianism is indeed a form of consequentialism, but is a major theory in itself, beyond consequentialism. Consequantialism suggests that an action's morality is determined by its consequences, utilitarianism goes on to say that a good consequence is one that fills the principle of utility (generally achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number). Consequentialism does look many other ethical theories besides utilitarianism (state consequentialism, ethical egoism & ethical altruism, for example), which separates it from utilitarianism. Certainly, there could be improved coverage of all of this, and perhaps coverage of other consequentialist theories. However, I do not think a merge would be appropriate, as utilitarianism is a notable concept in its own right, independent of its meta-ethical parent. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that both consequentialism and utilitarianism are notable. However, I am not sure each notable topic should have its own article. I am effectively wondering what is the most optimal way to cover both utilitarianism and consequentialism in general. --Chealer (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Should Socratic method and Socratic questioning be separate artcles?

rv, that's a good question :) I'll tag it with a merge suggestion.—Machine Elf 1735 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Infinity (philosophy)

Hi there. Can editors from this project please look into the recent edits at the above article. As shown in this version, the article was once stable and readable. As it stands now, though, it is an incomprehensible morass of bad english, random quotes and content of vague relevance. Other editor's opinions would be appreciated. ClaretAsh 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah it's pretty dire. I've reverted the additions and asked him to talk it to the talk page. Hopefully then he will word out his suggestions so they can be added in a more understandable way. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Even the old version was pretty bad. "In philosophy, infinity can be attributed to infinite dimensions"? Worse, that's the opening clause...! CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll stay clear of that. I had a quick look and I felt like taking a knife to it like in Psycho. Infinite dimensions and then the Indian bit, looked like it was about to start on om mani padme hum and karmic crystals. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Infinite dimensions is a useful concept in mathematics -- Banach spaces and the like -- but it's certainly not central to the conception of the infinite in general, and less so in philosophy than in mathematics. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The article could really use more eyes. Please check it; there's a serial editor there worsening the page. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy of religion navigation box

I've been experimenting with a new navigation sidebox for philosophy of religion at User:ItsZippy/Philosophy of religion. Once it is ready, I'll move it into the mainspace (under a different name which isn't taken) and start to incorporate it into philosophy of religion articles. Before then, I'd like to invite comment on the idea and any specifics, as well as invite any members of this project to help improve the template. Everything that is currently there is provisional - the layout, headings and content can all change. I await your input. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest basing it on {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} as it looks a bit bulky at first glance. Also, to fix the navbar links at the bottom of it, would adding {{subst:PAGENAME}} to the name parameter help? Otherwise, it looks like you've covered what people would expect.
Oh BTW, regarding the long list of philosophers you've included, may I suggest either
  • Removing the list and linking directly to List of philosophers of religion, or
  • Redirecting the article to the relevant category (if there is one) and listing them all in the navbar.
ClaretAsh 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice ClaretAsh - I think the collapsible lists are a good idea; I'd forgotten about those. With the collapsible lists, having a full list of philosophers of religion shouldn't be a problem, as it won't get in the way without someone choosing to open it. I'll make the necessary changes then move it to the template namespace and start to add it to the relevant articles. As ever, I'd love other people to make any improvements they think necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. A question, though. How do you intend to reconcile the sidebar with the existing navbar? My experience is it'll only be a matter of time before someone TFDs one of them on the grounds of doubling up. My suggestion: synchronise them (visually and content-wise) so that they can complement each other (Compare {{Fibers}} with {{Fibre sidebar}}). Then, you could either (a) put the series sidebar on the main articles and the navbar everywhere else; (b) put the sidebar on constituent articles and the navbar on non-constituent articles; or (c) add either according to the formatting demands of the respective articles. ClaretAsh 14:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice again. I think I will synchronise the two, then. I have moved the template to Philosophy of religion (sidebar) and started to add it to a few articles. It may be that I have been slightly hasty and put it in where it may not be appropriate - feedback regarding that would be appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have synchronised the two; however, within each template, there are duplicates of links (Problem of evil is a link both as a a heading and in the concepts of religion section, for example). Although that is not a big problem, I'll try to improve on that soon. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I made a few changes, some of which might need further work. I haven't adjusted the navbar to accord with the sidebar, though. I suggest finishing organising the content in one before synchronising the other one. I'll leave it in your hands. I think I've poked my nose in enough :-) BTW, I've also commented on the sidebar's talk page. ClaretAsh 10:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your tinkering and suggestions - they look good. I'll finish organising the content as you suggest, then look to resynchronise with the navbox. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Index of philosophy articles (R–Z)

Anybody interested in fixing Index of philosophy articles (R–Z)? It has 16 links to dab-pages and nobody seems to care about it. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the dabs. Most of them linked to dab-pages which are not related to philosophy at all. All the specific articles are included in the index.
Sapere aude22 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible greater cooperation across religion and philosophy projects

Please feel free to make any comments you might wish at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity regarding possible more closely coordinated activity between the various religion, philosophy, and mythology WikiProjects. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Drift chamber fork

I noticed that Drift chamber, who was recently blocked for largely incoherent additions to many articles, especially Infinity (philosophy), had created a copy/paste move article at Infinity (Oriental thought).

Any thoughts on what should happen to this?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kantian ethics

Hi there. I am currently working on improving Kantian ethics. Although I am pleased with what I have done with it so far, I am not expert in this area - could someone who more expertise perhaps have a look and see what they can do with it? In particular, reactions to Kant's ethics from other philosophers would be helpful. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left Zippy a message that I would take a look at it. Any second opinions would be welcome ofcourse.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Augustinian theodicy FAC

Hi there again. I'm just wondering if anyone here would be willing to review the FAC nomination of Augustinian theodicy. I've asked here before but the review page hasn't had a comment in the last 16 days - it would be good if someone could give their comments. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential person - please introduce links to article

The article potential person has almost no links to it from various philosophical articles. (It is mostly linked to be articles on abortion debate, plus natalism, antinatalism and personhood). I know there has been a lot of thought about potential vs. actual things, ideals, etc. and people must have applied those ideas to humans. So I expect there should be logical places were other articles should cover/link to such an article. In cases like this I have often found articles that are essentially duplicates under different names, so such might exist in this case as well. However I am not well versed in philosophy, nor in its coverage here, so would appreciate it if those who are would introduce links to the article, or suggest where such links would be reasonable. (The article could also use attention from anyone well versed in philosophy to better connect it's coverage to the other articles here.) Thank you. Zodon (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Divine command theory

Hello, fellow philosophers. I've recently been doing a bit of work on divine command theory, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I've made a fair bit of improvement, but it would be really helpful if someone who knows more about it that I do could have a look. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Philosophers-by-language categories up for deletion

FYI, the following categories have been proposed for deletion:

Discussion is here.  --Lambiam 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Individual

Is there an article somewhere that treats the notion of individual in the sense of "object considered as a whole, eligible to be en element of a class"? Searches for phrases like "individual (philosophy)" are confounded by too many hits for the notion of an individual person. Searching for "individual (ontology)", I hit upon ontology components#Individuals, but this seems to be more from a computer-science perspective. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Peter Strawson's book "Individuals" deals with this. It starts with "bodies" and the identification of particulars. Persons are dealt with but are not the central issue. Its years since I read it, however.--Logicalgregory (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-published references used in this project

Hi, Some time ago I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list and it eventually resulted in List of self-publishing companies. It seems that some of those publishers are used in this project, e.g. Vantage Press on Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy, etc. I am sure there are others. I am asking a few projects to help turn the tide against the invasion of Wikipedia by self-published sources by:

Eventually we will write a bot that checks these and leaves messages about them, and suggestions on that on Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Works

The category Aesthetics literature was depopulated and then proposed for speedy deletion. That is not the proper way to accomplish that type of thing. So the question is whether or not the works category is a replacement for, or a clarification of the lit category. Is this going to be the trend for the 19 or so other lit categories? Greg Bard (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review of religious language

Hi there. I've requested a peer review of religious language; I was wondering if anyone here could take a look for me? The review page is here. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Scientific law into Laws of science

A proposal to merge Scientific law into Laws of science is being discussed here. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Being needs a few more eyes

I wonder if there is someone here with the expertise to rewrite the lede of the article Being. We are looking for a few short paragraphs that introduce the term in much the same way it might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class.

Last december, I grossly simplified to the lede in order to remove some confusing prose, poor organization and (possible) original research. My simplification has been reverted with this recent edit. I don't want to get in an edit war over this, so I would appreciate a few more eyes. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I did what needed desperately to be done. What a disaster zone! Don't let anyone put that litany of impenetrabilities back again, please. The whole article needs work, but the lead was in deplorable condition. ☺♪ NoeticaTea? 10:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I have done a little more. This really will need watching. There has been an attempt to reinstate the manifestly defective lead that I have replaced. I don't mean to be high-handed; but the case was very clear.
NoeticaTea? 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a fascinating subject, and I applaud the work done on it so far. The question posed at the end of the lead, to me, is the central question posed by discipline, and I almost feel as though it might deserve to open the lead/lede?Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Paternalism and Soft Paternalism

This is to inform people of a new (political) philosophy entry and ask for advice. My first entry on wikipedia was supposed to be on Libertarian Paternalism (term coined by Thaler and Sunstein in a 2003 article in The American Economic Review). However, I discovered that there was a redirect to "soft paternalism". Some authors have called libertarian paternalism a form of soft paternalism but the terms are certainly not synonyms, or even very close. I tried submitting a new article on libertarian paternalism anyway but had it rejected twice with the only explanation that there is an existing redirect. So now I have updated the old entry on soft paternalism to be in effect an entry on libertarian paternalism, with a clear statement that this is the case in the first sentence. This is not optimal though. If someone has the clout and expertise to rename the soft paternalism entry that would be swell. Or break the redirect and move the content to a new entry, or whatever is the best technical solution. Filofil (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge Acquisition

The Knowledge Acquisition entry was initially about a stage in the building of computerized KBS (Expert Systems), it had nothing to do with philosophy directly. It has now devolved into a third rate entry about philosophy. All mention of KBS has disappeared but the links to Knowledge Engineering remain.

The current version seems to be the result of changes made by a very inexperience editor. It contains citations to Wikipedia (that's right "citations" not links) and the Britannica. It was flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy by user: Pollinosisss I think this was a mistake.

I do not think that Knowledge Acquisition can be treated separately from epistemology especially as there is an "Acquiring knowledge" section there. I propose that the entry be changed back to something about KBS and all reference to Wikiproject Philosophy deleted. A paragraph at the beginning could point readers to epistemology and to cognitive psychology. --Logicalgregory 07:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Header template deletion proposal

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_23#Template:Category-Logic.2Fheader

There is a proposal to delete the navigation bar on categories such as logic, aesthetics, etcetera. I am not seeing any very good reasons for the proposal, and it was at least a little bit of effort to create them. Greg Bard (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization Project Proposal

HI WikiProject Philosophy! I'm writing to inform you of my interest in starting a group that works on articles about globalization, in order to improve coverage of globalization on Wikipedia. Your group has banners on some of the articles that are key to this discussion, and I believe many perspectives and disciplines needs to come together if we're going to get it right. If you would consider supporting such a project, would you please swing by the Globalization Project Proposal and expressing that interest? Thanks so very much! LizFlash (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind

It would be great with some extra attention to a discussion at Talk:Mind where another editor and I are attempting to work towards a better definition of "mind". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi all. I am hoping to submit religious language to FAC soon - I would appreciate it if someone could copyedit the article, please. Thank you, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Philosophy members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Fyodor Dostoyevsky

hello,

I requested a peer review for Fyodor Dostoyevsky, see here. Any comments are appreciated. Regards.--GoPTCN 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Person, Personhood, and Personal identity

A debate is going on over at Talk:Person right now, where two other editors are wanting to add substantial material on the subject of Personhood directly into the lede of Person, which is a summary-style article of Personhood and Personal identity. My objections on the redundancy of this seem to fall on deaf ears; they don't seem to acknowledge that Personal identity exists at all (ADDENDUM: One of the editors in question is now calling Personal identity "philobabble" and questioning whether we should even have an article on that subject at all), or for that matter to have even read Person beyond the lede, or to realize that we have an entire article on Personhood already where their contributions would be much more appropriate. I would greatly appreciate some experienced editors stopping by to give their opinions on the matter there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Philobabble"?! I do wish Derek Parfit had time to go and re-educate certain people, preferably with a cricket bat. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious language problem

Hi everyone. Religious language problem is currently a featured article candidate; listed here. If anyone could review the article, I'd be grateful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion

There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting graph

This article, Graphing the history of philosophy, has a diagram constructed using the "influenced by" section of philosopher infoboxes. Greg Bard (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some help at Time?

I have recently come upon the article Time and found that the lede definition (the very first sentence) was written strictly from the POV of experimental physicists, essentially saying that time is a measurement. The lede said nothing about how time is normally experienced by humans (and other being) as, for lack of better words, our sequential progress in our existence. This is what is in the primary definitions of all three major English dictionaries. It's highly POV to require the lede definition of time to be defined only in terms of measurement. As if time has no meaning outside of measurement. Especially when it ignores the dictionary definition and especially when there exists a Time in physics article.

Primary definitions from 3 English language dictionaries:
thefreedictionary.com (obviously drawn from AH)
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 a.m.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future
American Heritage Dictionary
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes:checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 AM.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.
Oxford English Dictionary (1971 Compact Edition)
1. A limited stretch or space of continued existence, as the interval between two successive events or acts, or the period through which an action, condition, or state continues.

Can we get some help there at Time? 71.169.176.253 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent move of Existence of God to Existence of God(s)

The above article was recently, so far as I can tell unilaterally, moved from the first title to the second. There has been a request for a move back to the old title at Talk:Existence of God(s)#Article title question, and I would welcome the input of any editors regarding the name and content of the article in question. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Category:Style

Category:Style, a recently created category, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. All are welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

What do people think of Max H. Siegel? It appears he may have created this himself. Greg Bard (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for speedy, it's just a page that a student created for himself. If the bar of notability is this low then I am notable: that is not a good sign. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I just can't bring myself to propose deletion of any articles in the philosophy department. So I try to bring this to people's attention here.Greg Bard (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Hi there. Just to let you know, Religious language problem is still a feature article candidate; I'd appreciate it if anyone else could have a look and give comments. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A haunting philosophy draft, with ghosts and everything

I've put a draft together, as I said I might to Drmies, of how this could be as a proper philosophy article, rather than the grab-bag that it currently is and that people are objecting to. Have a look. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NOT

Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolute

What a pile of excrement. Embarrassing. Someone ought to take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean absolute (philosophy) rather than absolute, which is a disambig page. It is not terribly useful to post "such-and-such article is bad". Can you enumerate your top one or two general complaints, or top two or three specific complaints? Do you feel there should or should not be an article about the notion of the absolute in philosophy? If there should not, you may consider WP:AFD; if there should, then perhaps you can say a few words about what material such an article should cover, and what it should say about it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I mean absolute (philosophy). The fact that I'm posting on the philosophy WikiProject page is probably a fair indicator of that. I linked it, and then realised afterwards that it went to the disambiguation page, but thought that the meaning would be obvious. I have commented on the talk page, as well as on the talk page of 'relativism'. If, to an informed editor, the reason why that article is terrible is not apparent, then there's no hope anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is nevertheless good manners to elucidate specific, and potentially actionable, assertions, thereby opening yourself up to specific criticism in exchange for the criticism you level against the article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Combines many traditions into a single article in a way which does not distinguish sufficiently between them.
  • Lacks citations for some very bold claims (the five things all conceptions of 'the Absolute' have in common, for example).
  • Criticism section incoherent. Is that criticism of the idea of absoluteness in general, or of specific ideas of it, or of the arguments that specific thinkers mentioned in the article hold it to be true. It seems to be a tangled mess of all three.
  • Crucially, lacks detail about such conceptions as 'absolute truth' (which is different to 'universal truth').
  • Structurally a tad bizarre: why would an article entitled 'Absolute (philosophy) need a subsection entitled 'The Absolute in Philosophy'?
  • Et cetera. I'm not going to get bogged down in arguments here, and have no particular desire to 'open myself up to specific criticism', not because I'm scared of it, but because I couldn't be bothered getting sucked in to another Wikipedia crank impasse. I didn't come here to debate, but rather as a favour, to let what grownups might remain here know that there's an article in dire need of help, which has possibly slipped through the net for a while. It should be obvious that it's terrible; it's like marking a substandard first year essay: I could spend ages elucidating every little problem, but to someone familiar with the subject, it will be self-evidently bad. Take it or leave it. --08:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 (talk)

Possible religion/philosophy/mythology topical newsletter

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy is a Featured Article candidate; any comments there would be appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussion - John Major / John Mair

Please see:

Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Vital articles

Members of this wikiProject may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Mathematics -> Philosopher. Yaris678 (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Taoism/Tao Te Ching

FYI, both Taoism and Tao Te Ching have been proposed to be renamed to the Pinyin romanization, see Talk:Tao Te Ching -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed template deletion

User:Alan_Liefting has proposed the deletion of a couple of category templates. These templates provide convenient links to categories that are not otherwise convenient due to quirks of the organization (e.g. Category "Ethics" is not easily reached from category "Philosophy" due to being under "Branches of philosophy"). Please see:

Greg Bard (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to edit Organ Trade article

Hello everybody, I am student at Rice University working on a Wikipedia article for class. I am proposing to edit the "Organ Trade" article to be more inclusive of the growing amount of information available about how the illegal organ trade impacts those in impoverished nations. Particularly, I am planning on updating the "Debate" section to include more about the scholarly discussion that is taking place as it regards the organ trade. I believe this issue is closely tied to ethics and morality, and as such I would greatly appreciate the assistance of this Wikiproject while editing the article. I look forward to working with you all! CoeA (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mind-body problem

I've made several proposals for changes to Mind-body problem, but aside from MachineElf, who is opposed to any change, there has been no interest shown on the Talk page. The article Mind-body problem is in pathetic condition, and some help editing this topic would be useful. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

John Anthony's Wager

Could someone please have a look at the AFC John Anthony's Wager which is about a philosophical argument. I wrongly reviewed it (now amended) but I would like to provide some additional guidance to the submitter. I am not familiar even slightly with the subject matter so any suggestions in regards to what the minimum notability/referencing requirements might be for something like this would be helpful. Thoughts much appreciated, France3470 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is complicated. Wikipedia policy requires that articles be based on reputable published sources. There is apparently no published source of any sort that uses the term "John Anthony's Wager". QED. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


Article about SEP v Wikipedia, et al

A Homepage for Philosophy

This is an article that talks a bit about the philosophy articles at Wikipedia.Greg Bard (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A Thousand Plateaus

Is anyone interested in collaborating to expand the article on this important book by Deleuze & Guattari? We could each take a plateau. (There aren't really a thousand.) Just say hi on the talk page or call dibs on a chapter or something. groupuscule (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society at peer review

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Logical consequence

Talk:Entailment#Move_back_to_logical_consequence

A while back, the article Logical consequence was moved to Entailment. I subsequently proposed to move it back. However, it was not. I have always found this to be a very troubling development. Recently, I have been adding reference resources to articles and categories consistent with those resources. This is one that is not consistent (and I said it at the time.) Please take a look at SEP, InPho, PhilPapers, and IEP, none of which has an article on "entailment" independent of "logical consequence." The article itself is a bit scattered, and this has been a big stumbling block for me to improving it. It is only one of the most important concepts in logic. Please support this move, as it is consistent with the scholarly literature on the subject, and Wikipedia is the odd resource out in this regard. Greg Bard (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Logic

Can we do something about this dogs breakfast of a page? Category:Logic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

General Semantics

As a newby I'm surprised that General Semantics is not considered to be a philosophical subject. It certainly has a direct relationship to the nature of reality, which is definitely a subject for philosophy.

I beg your pardon, please ignore the preceding. I found the topic.

Sui docuit (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit

Augustin Sesmat

Hello, do you have anything on Augustin Sesmat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Meltdown (talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Metaphysical" cosmology

Category:Metaphysical_cosmology
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_1#Category:Metaphysical_cosmology

I have proposed for the category "metaphysical cosmology" to be deleted and its content to be moved to either "religious" or "mythological" cosmology. The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophers, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two. It is a disservice to legitimate scholars and hurts the credibility of WP, especially the philosophy department.Greg Bard (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are only 2 articles, Celestial spheres and Dynamics of the celestial spheres, neither religion nor mythology, much less "spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism" are appropriate. Let's not mish-mash the two, they're entirely legitimate... apparently it's a content dispute [3].—Machine Elf 1735 08:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Those two were recently put back there, wrongly imo. Those two are more properly under "early scientific cosmologies" which falls under the scholarly "physical cosmology." The other category under cosmology is "religious cosmology" which is for all the non-scholarly items. So those two really don't belong under "metaphysical cosmology" as it had been used. Greg Bard (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Gregbard, can you provide some background for your ideas about the limitations on "metaphysics"? In my experience the term is used much more widely than simply to reference academic Western philosophy. groupuscule (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The limitation is the use of reason as methodology. Use of the term outside of that is abuse and an attempt to give credibility to something that is not credible. This is why there is a tendency of scientists and mathematicians to look down at philosophy. It isn't appropriate to lump legitimate philosophers in with esotericism, spiritualism, etcetera. This isn't about east v west either. There are plenty of legitimate eastern metaphysicians. My main concern in the cosmology category tree is that editors from the sciences and mathematics will systematically remove legitimate philosophy of time, philosophy of physics, and other legitimate metaphysics content because they don't understand the difference between metaphysics and the esotericism, spiritualism, etcetera. This is why there needs to be a clear line in the sand, on which philosophy of time, philosophy of physics, and other legitimate metaphysics stand on the same side as theoretical physics, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, very interesting. groupuscule (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

William Vorilong

Hello can you help me out? I wrote a page about William Vorinlong, but i think it needs to be corrected and improved. I think it needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotia me genuit (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it was deleted pretty quickly. You should always start out by including why this is a notable person. Otherwise it is susceptible to being deleted. Remember to always sign your talk posts with ~~~~. Welcome. Greg Bard (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder

There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input from philosophers would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

McMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I thought I would pass this along... You can download a ten volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy using this link.Greg Bard (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeated proposals to merge Metalogic and Metamathematics

Talk:Metamathematics#Metalogic

Once again, User:Arthur Rubin has proposed to merge Metalogic and Metamathematics. In my opinion, Arthur's issues are POV related, and any merge will most likely result in substantial content deletion. Greg Bard (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to restore pseudoscience and antiscience as part of definition in Alternative medicine article, using sources Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, etc.

A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Medical Journal of Australia, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with your point. I reinserted the category "pseudoscience" to the category, and I will monitor that. One point that the other side has, is that you should propose specific wording and the discussion should be based on that. If you go in and boldly reword it to your liking, I will join in and help you out. Greg Bard (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I have now made some specific proposals at that talk page. I am copying your comment to that talk page discussion for others to see and comment on, using WP:RTP reasoning, but if you only wanted it here on this project page, feel free to revert my move. ParkSehJik (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good.Greg Bard (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Logical symbols

Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler), (or to a music band without a Wiki page per Google) ?

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

(See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -
"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:
Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]
Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."
- I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
- There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
- According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."
(Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.)
  • I therefore propose a disabiguation page, but I expect any edit redirecting the main title of the Nazis' asserted third mellinium empire will raise emotions, so the issue should be thoroghly vetted first.ParkSehJik (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • My two cents: I'm assuming here that Third Realm is being used as an Anglicization of Third Reich? But nobody says that; the fixed form uses Reich untranslated. So I think the redirect to Nazi Germany is surely wrong.
That doesn't mean the redirect to abstract object is necessarily correct. First of all, is Frege's conception more specific than abstract objects in general? If so, possibly it should redirect to Gottlob Frege.
Another point to consider is that most of the ghits seem to be for a heavy-metal band, about which we don't seem to have an article. If the band is notable, it might grab the main name (not because it's more important than Frege's concept, certainly, but because it's more on-point for the search term) with a hatnote to Frege (or maybe to abstract object), and just possibly to Nazi Germany if it can be established that anyone actually translates Reich in this way. --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(Note: I updated and modified my opening comment after Trovatore made his. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) )
  • As per User:Trovatore's comments, "third realm" is merely an incorrect translation of the German. Third Reich is the correct translation. I have seen some modern philosophers discussing the idea of "third realm" in Frege's sense, so redirect to Frege is reasonable since the term has some currency. Tkuvho (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (Per WP:RTP, this comment was copied from identical discussion section here ParkSehJik (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC) )
  • I fail to see how "Third Realm" is an "incorrect" translation. It's perfectly correct, though not the only possible one (Third Empire being another; and that's a disambiguation page). The point is just that it's not common usage. The issue is whether Frege's usage is specific enough to require disambiguation, and also whether there's anything special about Frege's reference to a third "realm" - a concept that can be applied in many areas.
A google search of "there is a third realm" indicates that Frege's is the most common usage in English for the phrase [4] Paul B (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly Paul B is not only correct, but a Google search of "third realm" first produces results for a music band, a band whose fans have somehow not managed to establish notability and get them a Wiki page. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Using Third Reich half untranslated only applies to Hitlers monstosity. In case of Frege's concept it can and should be translated unless there are English RS that keep it untranslated. A disambiguation or WP:TWODAB is in order. Mayby ask a music WikiProject for input on the notability of the heavy metal group. Agathoclea (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (Note:Comment copied from other talk page here per WP:RTP ParkSehJik (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) )
  • Third Reich and Drittes Reich should both redirect to Nazi Germany as being the overwhelmingly primary use of the terms. Obscure philosophical concepts and in-fashion music groups are surely not on the same level as the empire that changed world history. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (Note:Comment copied from other talk page here per WP:RTP ParkSehJik (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) )
  • Third Reich and Drittes Reich should redirect to Nazi Germany, but the calque "Third Realm", which is not commonly used as a term for the Third Reich, except in an explanatory fashion (e.g. in parentheses or quotation marks, or preceded by "literally") should be disambiguated. If "third realm" is commonly used in philosophical texts, I do not think a full disambiguation page is necessary; a hatnote (e.g. using {{Distinguish2}} would be sufficient, in my opinion.--Boson (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ontological status of psychiatric mental categories, philosophy of scientific methodology, and MEDRS

Following discussion re MEDRS, ontologic status of psychiatric categories, and controversy re the scientific methodologies for attaching the term "disease" and "disorder" to the categories, if they really exist, on the psychiatry and related talk page, FiachraByrne wrote (bolfaced for emphasis of most relevant part -

"Psychiatry is one of the oldest medical specialisms. It's designation as medical practice is a disciplinary/professional attribute that has little to do with the actual content of psychiatric knowledge or the nature of psychiatric practice. To establish this it is unnecessary to evaluate whether in any or all instances psychiatry adheres to the so-called 'scientific method'."

As to the designation as a medical practice is a MEDRS issue at Wikipedia, not just a matter of determining common usage on the street. The same WP:MEDRS standards should be applied to psychiatry as to alternative medicine articles. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is also one of the oldest "medical" practices. There is rigorous enforcement by WP:MEDRS hawks (of which I am one) that assertions re TCM being healing "medicine", as defined in that article and by MEDRS standards. The only allowable edits are that TCM practitioners "claim" to heal. TCM uses supernatural etiological objects ("qi" flow blockage causing qi, not the heart, to propel the blood inadequately), and outright false statements about anatomies, developed without the "cutting" of the "tom" in "anatomy" (Greek "tom" means "cut", as in "a-tom" – meaning not further able to be cut, as atoms were thought to be), has also historically been designated "medicine". MEDRS has different standards than accepted common usage, and for good reasons well argued in setting up the policy. I believe that this topic should be noticed at Wikiproject Philosophy, MEDRS talk, and at Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I am loathe to do so, however, as this will draw kooks and people with other agendas from the "alt med community" with no expertise in this technical topic of discussion, distorting and obscuring the discussion.

Discussion of "Should the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and related articles be held to a lower MEDRS standard than alternative medicine and its related articles?" is here[5]. ParkSehJik (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

File:WJStein 1.jpg

File:WJStein 1.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Proposed Changes to Atheism Article

Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.

Major changes at Free will

Hi everyone,

I'm looking to get other experienced editors involved at a dispute ongoing at Talk:Free will. An editor there is pushing to make some major changes which I think are clearly negative and reflect a general misunderstanding of the topic as a whole. The editor appears to be trying to use the talk page to come to an understanding himself of the topic, but meanwhile wants to completely rewrite the delicately-worded lede with his (ever-changing) current best understanding, and hasn't identified any problems in the article as it stands besides that he can't understand it. I have been trying to explain why his proposed edits are not acceptable and would be a major violation of WP:NPOV in one direction or another, and one other inexperienced editor is commenting occasionally in my favor, but this discussion is extremely time-consuming and I just don't know that I will always be there to keep this up.

So I would really like if some other experienced editors would at least keep an eye on the article and talk page discussion and hopefully join in the discussion, so that if I don't have the time to commit to this the other editor doesn't wreck the delicate POV balance that other editors have worked so hard to established over the years there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of category "metatheories of religion"

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9#Category:Metatheory_of_religion

The category for every field of philosophy has a "theories" subcategory. This makes it possible for readers to easily compare and contrast the competing theories in any of the various fields. It would seem to be a very important feature for our readers. User:Editor2020 has proposed to delete this category under philosophy of religion Metatheory of religion. I am not sure what the alternative is, and this would be a serious loss for the whole project. Please help me keep a consistent category structure, which I have worked so hard to establish.Greg Bard (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Appeal'

Appeals seem to be a commonly used concept in philosophical texts, but the closest Wikipedia has to a description of an appeals meaning in philosophy is in the 'Argument' section of Appeal_(disambiguation). There it is simply summarized as "Various types of informal fallacy are described as an appeal to something:" followed by a list of proposed fallacies.

This is surely an unfortuneate disservice to understanding of philosophical language. I read many examples of appeals mentioned as areas of inquiry, or as an identification of a subject important to an argument. To presuppose that if such identification can be made then fallacy is implied is clearly nonsense (?) Yet that is all WPs present definition eludes to.

I have not been able to locate a description of appeals meaning in philosophy to correct the definition with reference. Can anyone suggest how to improve the situation?

To Appeal to a concept would seem to be originally a somewhat poetic device metaphorically gesturing toward whatever concept understanding might be sought from. Alas i don't expect a poetic explanation will suffice today. Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Exist

Does anyone think its a good idea to make an article about supernatural entities such as heaven hell, angels, devils etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pass a Method (talk • contribs)

What would be the title? Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to pour cold water on this but I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings is probably relevant here. One should base articles on topics which have actually been discussed as a unit in the literature. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Philo and archive search

The article on Philo needs lots of work. It was completely unattributed copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) a week ago. I'm looking for interested editors. The problem is, Philo seems to be too Greek Philosophy leading to Christianity for the Jewish History project and too Jewish for any Christian history editors (can't seem to find the right Christian project page). Help!

Why isn't there an archive search box on this page like on other voluminous talk pages? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look into the archive search issue.Greg Bard (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please improve God is dead

I demoted God is dead from B- to C-class for the reasons outlined in Talk:God is dead#This article needs re-factoring or re-writing. I lack the expertise to do the article justice, so I'm calling editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to quickly improve the article at least to B-class.

In recognition of the Feb 28, 2012 death of William Hamilton (theologian), I'm further challenging both WikiProjects to work to get this to Good Article status if possible. Please follow up on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher Seeking to be Referenced

Hello everyone, and happy New Year!, I am a philosopher and have spent my life invested into the most difficult subjects of our human condition. This year was spent practically explaining the theory behind our social problem's historical development, and how we could flip everything by creating quality free education, distributed on the Internet.

I do not separate my "personal" and "professional" life. I am alone in this life and spend it travelling the world, studying society both theoretically and practically while standing outside of it. I then create films (moderately popular considering I am fighting against mainstream) that attempt to receptively reinterpret wisdom into the actions of our society's individuals. I then distribute these films for free utilising most media distribution formats including many sources on the Internet and DVD's.

I would assert that I am more closely connected with my work than anyone else in the world because my heart is all in it. I live the life of an anchorite. And when the relational qualities of the dots of our constellations become clear to me, I am thrown into inspiration and then very quickly create very moving productions that will stand the test of time.

My work is all about me. But I have conditioned my psychology over my life to be all about our human condition. Thus from the reflections of me, if the work is examined in its entirety, we come to learn that my work is all about each and every one of us. I have spent my life attempting to remove bias from my thought process. And I closely examine each and every detail within my existence and contemplate different methods to understand and interpret this "reality" in front of me.

I am seeking for a way for my work to be referenced within Wikipedia. I have a great amount of work but have really only started creating professional audiovisual productions recently, so my old work would not need articles on them, but may be linked as references. I will not have a problem finding additional references for the articles because that is all included in my work anyway: I am a philosophy teacher.

Me and all of my productions that I would add to this site are EXTREMELY noteworthy and will one day be in physical encyclopaedias. I have given my life entirely to all of my fellow human brothers and sisters and one day the world will realise what I have done.

I do want to mention that my work is extremely controversial according to our modern society. But when we shine light over the ghosts we always find that they were only sheets draped over a chair. Dionysus is my method and Love is my game. I do all of this for free. I do not want anyone's money but instead, their heart. Love is free and my heart belongs to all of you.

  • [www.imdb.com/name/nm5192719/]
  • [www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-0aaji0nU]

Thanks! - Wendell Charles NeSmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. NeSmith, the way in which Wikipedia decides whether someone's work is noteworthy, is if it has been noted by thirdparties who have published about it. This means that wikipedia is not the place to publish references to your work untill such a time that the world has already realized what you have done, and published articles or books about it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is sad because I see so many unexplained metaphors and allegories within mythology on Wikipedia and it irritates me and I am driven to clear them up. It will happen when the necessity for mass media is blown away by the Internet. BTW, Dr. NeSmith is my father. He is a professor in education. I have studied my entire life but never cared about getting a PhD because our education system is flawed at its very core, and I saw this reflected in my Father's life throughout my own. A PhD means nothing and I am here to show us all this. What we do with the conscious seconds in front of us means everything. Wcnesmith (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to be sad. If you would like to clarify things, please feel free. However, do expect that any original research will be called into question, and most likely deleted. If there are competing prevailing theories that have scholarly literature behind them, then I would look to make sure that all of that material is covered. Any new, and unpublished work, no matter how brilliant and valid it is needs some back up in the literature before it can be a part of an encyclopedia.Greg Bard (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My work is all backed up with scholarly sources. But the end result is new work as their relational qualities are examined and compared with our modern times. Most of what I do is reinterpret old wisdom but in this process I find new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith (talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I welcome you to contribute. However, I just hope you are clear about how it works around here. If you have a new interpretation of things, it will probably be removed. If there is an interpretation that has been put forward in primary sources, and further supported by secondary sources, then it will most likely stay. Wikipedia is just not a place for an author to get him or herself referenced in general because we have a policy on conflict of interest. (remember to sign your posts with ~~~~) Greg Bard (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Greg. My interpretation of things is in my work and would only be outlined in Wikipedia, referencing to other material to further explain metaphors and allegories originally intended from the fables but not yet explored within the current articles (mythology and its deep meaning is really lacking on this site). All I desired to do was to point to that work for further interpretation on mythology, backed with sources. From this information, I do not think that my edits would be rejected. The only thing that I am unsure of is new articles, but I guess I will see because they will be backed by sources. This is why I wanted someone to review them and give me feedback on how to include them in the way that Wikipedia wanted me to. Like I said before, I am a philosophy teacher and I teach the history and development of philosophy. I am not throwing out ideals that are new: only applying old ideals to our modern times, digging up old forgotten wisdom. There is nothing new under the Sun.

I also do all of this for free and the conflict of interest really only stresses those who make money off of their material. I give myself for free to help develop society. My only interest is to help build our collective past, present, and future knowledge. Wcnesmith (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I correct myself. My only edit so far with Pygmalion was removed. I am not going to bother with this project. Other people can one day reference me and you lose the original source. It is amazing how people even here lack the ability to do background research to verify the sources and their validity. Overlook the source and then get people to write about the source. Wonderful way to build collective knowledge. The mythology sections here are not very accurate and their metaphors and allegories remain hidden. Good bye Wikipedia. I have much bigger fish to fry. Happy NY. Wcnesmith (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope you reconsider, and find a way to adjust to the situation here. You just can't join Wikipedia with the idea of pushing an agenda. The conflict of interest policy has nothing to do with whether or not anyone makes money. It's an encyclopedia, so the facts expressed have to be neutral, and have to have some support from the prevailing scholars in that area. The best thing to do is try to get all sides and present them neutrally. If you have some great new interpretation of things, then you should be able to point to some history or traditions leading up to it, that some other notable philosophers put forward before you. Greg Bard (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Archive_16&oldid=1142660117"