![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Suggest a move to "The Idea of Progress". Its an article about a definite idea and therefore requires the definite article. Domminico ( talk) 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone misquoted Robert Nisbet. Look up the quote and fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.182.39 ( talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, since we seem to agree on the idea of a merger, though disagree on the title of the resulting article, and since IF the merged article currently at Progress (history) does get renamed to this title (Idea of Progress) as you would like, this article will need to be deleted by an admin to make way for the move (as would the article currently at Progress if I get my way), I'm going to go ahead and redirect this article there to complete the merger, and we can then continue the debate there about where that article should be moved to. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's start over and keep this article--discussions about merger went nowhere because of profound disagreement about what is being covered. Rjensen ( talk) 09:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a hatnote which read "This article is about the theory that scientific progress produces social progress...". Rjensen changed that to read "This article is about the theory that scientific and social progress improves the human condition...". I'm curious: what exactly is meant by "social progress" if not "improvement of the human condition"? To my ear, the current text sounds like it's saying "...improvement in our understanding of the physical world [scientific progress] and improvement in the general well-being of humans [social progress] produces improvement in the general well-beiing of humans...", which seems redundant and tautological. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: I've tried to untangle the content in question.
With regard to the RS requested in your edit summary, the source listed is not reliable for scientific statements, and besides the cited pages (147-148) don't seem to mention evolution, so those considerations come first. Sunrise ( talk) 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
What sources establish the distinction between this topic and Progress (history)? I've looked at a few of them and I can't find anything unambiguous, like the use of "Idea of Progress" as a (capitalized) proper noun in a place you wouldn't otherwise expect capitalization. AFAICT all the uses of the terms in these sources can be interpreted as just pointing out that progress is in fact an idea, rather than identifying it as a separate concept. Sunrise ( talk) 04:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Suggest a move to "The Idea of Progress". Its an article about a definite idea and therefore requires the definite article. Domminico ( talk) 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone misquoted Robert Nisbet. Look up the quote and fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.182.39 ( talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, since we seem to agree on the idea of a merger, though disagree on the title of the resulting article, and since IF the merged article currently at Progress (history) does get renamed to this title (Idea of Progress) as you would like, this article will need to be deleted by an admin to make way for the move (as would the article currently at Progress if I get my way), I'm going to go ahead and redirect this article there to complete the merger, and we can then continue the debate there about where that article should be moved to. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's start over and keep this article--discussions about merger went nowhere because of profound disagreement about what is being covered. Rjensen ( talk) 09:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a hatnote which read "This article is about the theory that scientific progress produces social progress...". Rjensen changed that to read "This article is about the theory that scientific and social progress improves the human condition...". I'm curious: what exactly is meant by "social progress" if not "improvement of the human condition"? To my ear, the current text sounds like it's saying "...improvement in our understanding of the physical world [scientific progress] and improvement in the general well-being of humans [social progress] produces improvement in the general well-beiing of humans...", which seems redundant and tautological. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Rjensen: I've tried to untangle the content in question.
With regard to the RS requested in your edit summary, the source listed is not reliable for scientific statements, and besides the cited pages (147-148) don't seem to mention evolution, so those considerations come first. Sunrise ( talk) 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
What sources establish the distinction between this topic and Progress (history)? I've looked at a few of them and I can't find anything unambiguous, like the use of "Idea of Progress" as a (capitalized) proper noun in a place you wouldn't otherwise expect capitalization. AFAICT all the uses of the terms in these sources can be interpreted as just pointing out that progress is in fact an idea, rather than identifying it as a separate concept. Sunrise ( talk) 04:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)