This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you like me to have chosen this talk page? Perhaps you could have explained to me why you falsified and nullified some of my assignments to Category:Dichotomies as "not appropriate." May I ask you why Creation-evolution controversy in particular is not worth the category, even though it may have so long and so seriously divided the United States, for example, into two very hostile camps?
I roughly agree with the notion of dichotomy as:
Yet, the attribute (1) in particular looks very problematic in practice. The attribute (2) alone may be good enough for a given question, say, "Whether the world has been created by God or evolved by natural selection." Meanwhile, perhaps few would dare to answer how exactly creation and evolution are "mutually exclusive."
The famous and notorious mind-body dichotomy sounds nonsensical to many, if not most, current mainstream philosophers and scientists who believe that the mind is not " The Ghost in the Machine" but the body viewed from a certain perspective, hence, so to speak, the collapse of mind-body dichotomy. Also very instructive is the title The Collapse of Fact/Value Dichotomy of Hilary Putnam's 2004 book. Most well-known dichotomies would better survive to witness the past, right or wrong, even after they have collapsed, degenerating into a nonsense. -- KYPark ( talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The mind-body dualism used to be focally attributed to Descartes alone instead of the formidable church that insists on the immortality of the soul. That is, the mind-body as well as creation-evolution issue is deeply rooted in the relationship between religion and science, respectively, that ought to be a vital philosophical debate as a whole. As such, all those factors may well sum up into a single agenda, say, mind(soul)-creation-religion vs. body-evolution-science(biology), where evolutionary biologists actually play the overriding role, as if on behalf of evading or irrelevant philosophers. They include Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, William Donald Hamilton, John Carew Eccles, and Francis Crick (who shifted from DNA to consciousness), just to name a few.
The old mind-body issue looks like being shifted or added up to the new enlarged creation-evolution agenda, as suggested as follows:
Consciousness#Evolutionary biology
Consciousness can be viewed from the evolutionary biology approach as an adaptation because it is a trait that increases fitness.[22] Consciousness also adheres to John Alcock's theory of animal behavioral adaptations because it possesses both proximate and ultimate causes.[23] The proximate causes for consciousness, i.e. how consciousness evolved in animals, is a subject considered by Sir John C. Eccles in his paper "Evolution of consciousness." He argues that special anatomical and physical properties of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness.[24] See also: Evolutionary psychology |
It would be wise to take seriously the first things first and the last things last. The Occam's razor is well used to shave off such fine hairs as Xenu and the like.
As to my use of dichotomy, you said:
As to your use of logic in the next passage as follows:
I could exactly say the former quotation back to you, because the creation-evolution controversy is not the right logical but hottest philosophical agenda, because logic is not philosophy but everybody's way of reasoning ill or well.
You seem to confuse logic with philosophy. This is not too surprising, since a number of famous logicians have also happened to be (perhaps more precisely speaking, called) philosophers in effect. The two founding fathers of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, argued for logicism that subordinates math to logic. These top philosophers also happened to be mathematicians (who co-authored Principia Mathematica), hence logicans (who essentially aims to improve the system of logic).
However, to say logic is philosophy is to say math is philosophy, I fear. Logic and math are nothing but a tool useful for some reasoning. Their use is everybody's must. Philosophers simply use them, just as scientists and others do. And, their state of the art may or may not help solve philosophical as well as other enigmas, including the ageold creation-evolution controversy that has greatly endangered the US. Logic and math are essentially built on such a stringent kind of dichotomy or binary opposition as the Boolean logic of true and false, and the binary number system of 1 and 0. Hence, both are necessarily helplessly doomed by the fallacy of the excluded middle.
In addition to logicism, the said philosophers argued for logical atomism (whence analytic philosophy and deductive reasoning) in parallel to logical positivism. all these have turned out to be something good and bad indeed. In brief, these are essentially and fatally biased, one-sided or cripled, lacking the synoptic philosophy, failing to see the due dichotomy or yin and yang of everything, the two sides of the coin. This may not be a good place for further discussion of their dysfunction.
Dichotomies are everywhere. The world of objects, the mind of subjects, and the meaning of projects, all begin with them, prior to philosophy, formal logic, and the like. Nevertheless, would you insist that philosophy and logic has monopolized the Category:Dichotomies within Wikipedia? For what? How responsible are they to solve the world problem? How successful are they to resolve the creation-evolution controversy in agony, for example? The likely answers seem to be quite negative. The poor awareness of widespread conflicts, hostilities, antagonisms, or whatever dichotomies of an evil kind may leave the world problem unsolved and the world peace endangered.
-- KYPark ( talk) 07:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we agree on a number of points (perhaps mind-body, for example), but they don't seem relevant to whether it is appropriate to tag a particular article with the Dichotomies category.
I mentioned philosophy partly because that's the sense I think was intended for Dichotomies, but mainly because this category is a subcategory of Category:Dualism and Category:Logic. It would be major change to alter that arrangement (one that should require extended discussion by many people). Given the current arrangement, perhaps all we need is to find a reliable source using "dichotomy" (in the sense of dualism or logic) to describe the creation-evolution issue; if we find a good source, then the Dichotomies category applies, otherwise it doesn't. A tremendous amount of material, of very varied quality, has been written on this particular issue, so I believe we would need more than the odd mention to justify the category.
You stated that "Dichotomies are everywhere". If that is so, we have to face the consequence that the Dichotomies category may be unhelpful because it would encompass too many disparate articles, with no coherent message. To illustrate, here are some of the articles that you assigned to Dichotomies (which has subsequently been removed): Coevolution • Creation–evolution controversy • Even and odd functions • Genotype-phenotype distinction • Unweaving the Rainbow. If it were true that the category applies to those articles, I don't think the category would be very helpful.
I would like a wider discussion because there were three other editors who removed the Dichotomies tag; I'll think about what might be done. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. And, I hope you come back more open-minded. Yet, I wish you not to miss some crucial points:
-- KYPark ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The structure around Category:Dualism and Category:Dichotomies is quite puzzling. It is far from a well-done hierarchy, looking like a messy labyrinth. The former has 19 pages including 5 likely irrelevant, and 3 "subcategories" including not only the latter, but also Category:Spiritualism and Category:Vitalism which appear barely relevant.
And, the former belongs to:
Categories: Category:Philosophy of religion | Category:Religious belief and doctrine | Category:Metaphysical theories | Category:Theories of mind. |
Among them, Category:Metaphysical theories would be the proper generic category, while others the improper.
The former and the latter would better merge together to avoid ambiguity, unless their generic-specific roles could be specified and disambiguated.
Such a merged category would go beyond Category:Metaphysical theories or Category:Philosophical theories, maybe including hundreds of highly relevant pages. Note the category theory where relevance is graded.
To be precise, the section headline above should be taken as short for What ought to be dichotomy anyway? It is because of the is-ought problem, also relating to fact-value distinction and subject-object based metaphysics at least, as borrowed from the Examples below. That is to say, this category ought to be defined or prescribed (as opposed to described) unambiguous or clearcut enough to avoid category wars.
-- KYPark ( talk) 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify my concerns, following are some articles which I think should not be in Category:Dichotomies (currently, they are in the category). Comments on these specific cases would be welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Do me as you like me to do you. This reciprocity must be the best moral principle, East and West, past and future, hence the name Golden Rule. And, this must apply to this unprecedented project, Wikipedia, where anonymous world wide workers collaborate and collide, looking like waging science wars or the like! These should better be avoided as much as possible.
To this end, any serious counter-edit should be reasonably discussed in advance. You are welcome to have any diametric opinion, while not dictating but discussing them prior to authoritatively putting them into counter-action. Don't you feel like being offended by whoever dictates anything?
May I ask you to recover first whatever you have removed of my categorizations, say, creation-evolution controversy, before you talk your diametric opinion to me? And then, it is your turn to talk why each item of the above list should be removed from this category. Then, I will reply.
In the following, I split the list into subsections for each easy edit by anyone anytime. -- KYPark ( talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you like me to have chosen this talk page? Perhaps you could have explained to me why you falsified and nullified some of my assignments to Category:Dichotomies as "not appropriate." May I ask you why Creation-evolution controversy in particular is not worth the category, even though it may have so long and so seriously divided the United States, for example, into two very hostile camps?
I roughly agree with the notion of dichotomy as:
Yet, the attribute (1) in particular looks very problematic in practice. The attribute (2) alone may be good enough for a given question, say, "Whether the world has been created by God or evolved by natural selection." Meanwhile, perhaps few would dare to answer how exactly creation and evolution are "mutually exclusive."
The famous and notorious mind-body dichotomy sounds nonsensical to many, if not most, current mainstream philosophers and scientists who believe that the mind is not " The Ghost in the Machine" but the body viewed from a certain perspective, hence, so to speak, the collapse of mind-body dichotomy. Also very instructive is the title The Collapse of Fact/Value Dichotomy of Hilary Putnam's 2004 book. Most well-known dichotomies would better survive to witness the past, right or wrong, even after they have collapsed, degenerating into a nonsense. -- KYPark ( talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The mind-body dualism used to be focally attributed to Descartes alone instead of the formidable church that insists on the immortality of the soul. That is, the mind-body as well as creation-evolution issue is deeply rooted in the relationship between religion and science, respectively, that ought to be a vital philosophical debate as a whole. As such, all those factors may well sum up into a single agenda, say, mind(soul)-creation-religion vs. body-evolution-science(biology), where evolutionary biologists actually play the overriding role, as if on behalf of evading or irrelevant philosophers. They include Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, William Donald Hamilton, John Carew Eccles, and Francis Crick (who shifted from DNA to consciousness), just to name a few.
The old mind-body issue looks like being shifted or added up to the new enlarged creation-evolution agenda, as suggested as follows:
Consciousness#Evolutionary biology
Consciousness can be viewed from the evolutionary biology approach as an adaptation because it is a trait that increases fitness.[22] Consciousness also adheres to John Alcock's theory of animal behavioral adaptations because it possesses both proximate and ultimate causes.[23] The proximate causes for consciousness, i.e. how consciousness evolved in animals, is a subject considered by Sir John C. Eccles in his paper "Evolution of consciousness." He argues that special anatomical and physical properties of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness.[24] See also: Evolutionary psychology |
It would be wise to take seriously the first things first and the last things last. The Occam's razor is well used to shave off such fine hairs as Xenu and the like.
As to my use of dichotomy, you said:
As to your use of logic in the next passage as follows:
I could exactly say the former quotation back to you, because the creation-evolution controversy is not the right logical but hottest philosophical agenda, because logic is not philosophy but everybody's way of reasoning ill or well.
You seem to confuse logic with philosophy. This is not too surprising, since a number of famous logicians have also happened to be (perhaps more precisely speaking, called) philosophers in effect. The two founding fathers of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, argued for logicism that subordinates math to logic. These top philosophers also happened to be mathematicians (who co-authored Principia Mathematica), hence logicans (who essentially aims to improve the system of logic).
However, to say logic is philosophy is to say math is philosophy, I fear. Logic and math are nothing but a tool useful for some reasoning. Their use is everybody's must. Philosophers simply use them, just as scientists and others do. And, their state of the art may or may not help solve philosophical as well as other enigmas, including the ageold creation-evolution controversy that has greatly endangered the US. Logic and math are essentially built on such a stringent kind of dichotomy or binary opposition as the Boolean logic of true and false, and the binary number system of 1 and 0. Hence, both are necessarily helplessly doomed by the fallacy of the excluded middle.
In addition to logicism, the said philosophers argued for logical atomism (whence analytic philosophy and deductive reasoning) in parallel to logical positivism. all these have turned out to be something good and bad indeed. In brief, these are essentially and fatally biased, one-sided or cripled, lacking the synoptic philosophy, failing to see the due dichotomy or yin and yang of everything, the two sides of the coin. This may not be a good place for further discussion of their dysfunction.
Dichotomies are everywhere. The world of objects, the mind of subjects, and the meaning of projects, all begin with them, prior to philosophy, formal logic, and the like. Nevertheless, would you insist that philosophy and logic has monopolized the Category:Dichotomies within Wikipedia? For what? How responsible are they to solve the world problem? How successful are they to resolve the creation-evolution controversy in agony, for example? The likely answers seem to be quite negative. The poor awareness of widespread conflicts, hostilities, antagonisms, or whatever dichotomies of an evil kind may leave the world problem unsolved and the world peace endangered.
-- KYPark ( talk) 07:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we agree on a number of points (perhaps mind-body, for example), but they don't seem relevant to whether it is appropriate to tag a particular article with the Dichotomies category.
I mentioned philosophy partly because that's the sense I think was intended for Dichotomies, but mainly because this category is a subcategory of Category:Dualism and Category:Logic. It would be major change to alter that arrangement (one that should require extended discussion by many people). Given the current arrangement, perhaps all we need is to find a reliable source using "dichotomy" (in the sense of dualism or logic) to describe the creation-evolution issue; if we find a good source, then the Dichotomies category applies, otherwise it doesn't. A tremendous amount of material, of very varied quality, has been written on this particular issue, so I believe we would need more than the odd mention to justify the category.
You stated that "Dichotomies are everywhere". If that is so, we have to face the consequence that the Dichotomies category may be unhelpful because it would encompass too many disparate articles, with no coherent message. To illustrate, here are some of the articles that you assigned to Dichotomies (which has subsequently been removed): Coevolution • Creation–evolution controversy • Even and odd functions • Genotype-phenotype distinction • Unweaving the Rainbow. If it were true that the category applies to those articles, I don't think the category would be very helpful.
I would like a wider discussion because there were three other editors who removed the Dichotomies tag; I'll think about what might be done. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. And, I hope you come back more open-minded. Yet, I wish you not to miss some crucial points:
-- KYPark ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The structure around Category:Dualism and Category:Dichotomies is quite puzzling. It is far from a well-done hierarchy, looking like a messy labyrinth. The former has 19 pages including 5 likely irrelevant, and 3 "subcategories" including not only the latter, but also Category:Spiritualism and Category:Vitalism which appear barely relevant.
And, the former belongs to:
Categories: Category:Philosophy of religion | Category:Religious belief and doctrine | Category:Metaphysical theories | Category:Theories of mind. |
Among them, Category:Metaphysical theories would be the proper generic category, while others the improper.
The former and the latter would better merge together to avoid ambiguity, unless their generic-specific roles could be specified and disambiguated.
Such a merged category would go beyond Category:Metaphysical theories or Category:Philosophical theories, maybe including hundreds of highly relevant pages. Note the category theory where relevance is graded.
To be precise, the section headline above should be taken as short for What ought to be dichotomy anyway? It is because of the is-ought problem, also relating to fact-value distinction and subject-object based metaphysics at least, as borrowed from the Examples below. That is to say, this category ought to be defined or prescribed (as opposed to described) unambiguous or clearcut enough to avoid category wars.
-- KYPark ( talk) 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify my concerns, following are some articles which I think should not be in Category:Dichotomies (currently, they are in the category). Comments on these specific cases would be welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Do me as you like me to do you. This reciprocity must be the best moral principle, East and West, past and future, hence the name Golden Rule. And, this must apply to this unprecedented project, Wikipedia, where anonymous world wide workers collaborate and collide, looking like waging science wars or the like! These should better be avoided as much as possible.
To this end, any serious counter-edit should be reasonably discussed in advance. You are welcome to have any diametric opinion, while not dictating but discussing them prior to authoritatively putting them into counter-action. Don't you feel like being offended by whoever dictates anything?
May I ask you to recover first whatever you have removed of my categorizations, say, creation-evolution controversy, before you talk your diametric opinion to me? And then, it is your turn to talk why each item of the above list should be removed from this category. Then, I will reply.
In the following, I split the list into subsections for each easy edit by anyone anytime. -- KYPark ( talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)