![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Future scientific breakthroughs ought to be produced more by scientists who have mastered both their own specialties and basics of philosophy of science, including method." - I don't think an encyclopedia should be making "prescriptive" statements ("ought") like this. So this should be either removed or reformulated so that it just documents that "notable person XYZ made this prescription".
To be honest, that whole paragraph seems a bit fishy: "Frequently unable to defend their works from intellectual attacks, scientists also generally cannot optimize methods and productivity." That is such a general and meaningless statement. Scientists can't generally optimize productivity? What? -- 2A02:8071:2BD3:E300:689A:D30B:A237:A918 ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"In the 19th and 20th centuries, inductivism succumbed to hypotheticodeductivism—sometimes worded deductivism—as scientific method's realistic idealization."
Given that wikipedia’s epistemology is based off whatever the popularly agreed upon opinion is, I’m not sure there is enough justification to declare that Deductivism was “succumbed” to.
For all wikipedia knows, Inductivism is the current zeitgeist which people are “succumbing” to.
Is there anyway to soften the language so the article appears less opinionated? Maybe something like “In the 19th and 20th centuries Deductivism was favored.”
Reading the article currently doesn't give me hope that the author is unbiased, as they are using colored language to paint a competing theory in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.154.43 ( talk) 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
A significant portion of this page is incoherent to a point where I cannot even parse the intended meaning of individual sentences well enough to edit them. Incomplete sentences, non-sequiturs, missing verbs etc. This is not a case of opaque language or minor grammatical mistakes. I’d say a good 80% of the sentences on this page are structurally lacking to such an extent that they are effectively meaningless. It is simply not English. I dont know of any nicer way to put that. Someone (not me) who is familiar with Inductivism and has a functioning understanding of the English language needs to swoop in and rewrite this from scratch. Except the introduction. It’s generally decent. Uhhuhuhuh ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the comments I made under “Succumbing to the zeitgeist” because I’m new to Wikipedia editing and I didn’t really know which text box to use. You should go read those before reading this. Anyways, this page is barely English; near every sentence is poorly constructed…to put it mildly. Also, as someone who knows a bit about inductive reasoning, uh, this page, even the portions that are syntactically correct ENOUGH to convey some meaning, is just complete gibberish. This person does not know what inductive reasoning is or how it functions. Or why.
Now, why did I type all of this up instead of editing the document itself? Go ask someone else, I don’t know. Uhhuhuhuh ( talk) 11:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Future scientific breakthroughs ought to be produced more by scientists who have mastered both their own specialties and basics of philosophy of science, including method." - I don't think an encyclopedia should be making "prescriptive" statements ("ought") like this. So this should be either removed or reformulated so that it just documents that "notable person XYZ made this prescription".
To be honest, that whole paragraph seems a bit fishy: "Frequently unable to defend their works from intellectual attacks, scientists also generally cannot optimize methods and productivity." That is such a general and meaningless statement. Scientists can't generally optimize productivity? What? -- 2A02:8071:2BD3:E300:689A:D30B:A237:A918 ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"In the 19th and 20th centuries, inductivism succumbed to hypotheticodeductivism—sometimes worded deductivism—as scientific method's realistic idealization."
Given that wikipedia’s epistemology is based off whatever the popularly agreed upon opinion is, I’m not sure there is enough justification to declare that Deductivism was “succumbed” to.
For all wikipedia knows, Inductivism is the current zeitgeist which people are “succumbing” to.
Is there anyway to soften the language so the article appears less opinionated? Maybe something like “In the 19th and 20th centuries Deductivism was favored.”
Reading the article currently doesn't give me hope that the author is unbiased, as they are using colored language to paint a competing theory in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.154.43 ( talk) 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
A significant portion of this page is incoherent to a point where I cannot even parse the intended meaning of individual sentences well enough to edit them. Incomplete sentences, non-sequiturs, missing verbs etc. This is not a case of opaque language or minor grammatical mistakes. I’d say a good 80% of the sentences on this page are structurally lacking to such an extent that they are effectively meaningless. It is simply not English. I dont know of any nicer way to put that. Someone (not me) who is familiar with Inductivism and has a functioning understanding of the English language needs to swoop in and rewrite this from scratch. Except the introduction. It’s generally decent. Uhhuhuhuh ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the comments I made under “Succumbing to the zeitgeist” because I’m new to Wikipedia editing and I didn’t really know which text box to use. You should go read those before reading this. Anyways, this page is barely English; near every sentence is poorly constructed…to put it mildly. Also, as someone who knows a bit about inductive reasoning, uh, this page, even the portions that are syntactically correct ENOUGH to convey some meaning, is just complete gibberish. This person does not know what inductive reasoning is or how it functions. Or why.
Now, why did I type all of this up instead of editing the document itself? Go ask someone else, I don’t know. Uhhuhuhuh ( talk) 11:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)