![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can somebody add an example. this is jibberish to me. what does it mean in plain english?
aziz@ideayayinevi.com (istanbul)
The term "normative" is a neologism for the non-existen "conceptual" in contradistinction basically of "positive." This is a biassed essay inserting pro-positivist Hume into a place he does not deserve. It must be rewritten according to its place in the totality of the philosophical process.
I think it should be rewritten as "descriptive", instead of "positive", because its more widespread this way and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.131.250 ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I've put this in the right place, but I don't see a button for starting a new comment.
Norm, Normal, Normalcy and some related words should include a couple of concepts. One is the statistical definition of normal, meaning "typical" or "modal," or in the greatest number (a plurality or majority.)
It should include a sociological concept relating to the most common practices or beliefs. Commonly, a thing is ethical or unethical in relation to the beliefs and preferences of the greatest number of people (in a region.) Strongly-held attitudes may be opposed by attitudes of other groups, having other standards which they consider normal.
Thus, heterosexuality is often called "normal" because it is the condition or practice or belief of the greatest number. Once a majority believe that homosexuality is not deviant or evil, then it would become "normal" in that sense. Similar statements could be made in regard to racial segregation vs. integration.
It is also statistically normal that people should die or age, because those are universal conditions.
Normal can also refer to perfection, as in a "normal kidney," meaning a kidney without defect. If most 50-year olds have defective vision, that would be statistically normal for them, and the 50-year-old with perfect vision would be statistically deviant, though his vision would also be "normal" with respect to the perfection definition.
Common speech may refer to norms as socially agreed standards, such that it is the norm to accept a certain practice. There is a command element involved, but a greater suggestion of agreement by the greatest number.
As it stands at present, the subsection on Law is redundant on the definition in first subsection in philosophy. I suggest that the content be deleted or substantially rewritten. Thomasee73 ( talk) 08:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the following in my own words with citation:
This is my reading and interpretation of this text and I have reservations with my mediation and comprehension of the writer's tenets. I feel the article is stronger with it than without it even though it requires additional citations from other works to balance its view. My inclusion isn't as keen as I would like. 49.3.29.32 ( talk) 11:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time to properly address this, but recent edits by User:Quantuminformation concern me in that, at the very least, they are dramatic changes and the new lead begins in an unencyclopedic way. I'm tempted to just revert for that reason but instead I'd appreciate if someone with more time would take a look to verify that these big edits are good ones. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can somebody add an example. this is jibberish to me. what does it mean in plain english?
aziz@ideayayinevi.com (istanbul)
The term "normative" is a neologism for the non-existen "conceptual" in contradistinction basically of "positive." This is a biassed essay inserting pro-positivist Hume into a place he does not deserve. It must be rewritten according to its place in the totality of the philosophical process.
I think it should be rewritten as "descriptive", instead of "positive", because its more widespread this way and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.131.250 ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I've put this in the right place, but I don't see a button for starting a new comment.
Norm, Normal, Normalcy and some related words should include a couple of concepts. One is the statistical definition of normal, meaning "typical" or "modal," or in the greatest number (a plurality or majority.)
It should include a sociological concept relating to the most common practices or beliefs. Commonly, a thing is ethical or unethical in relation to the beliefs and preferences of the greatest number of people (in a region.) Strongly-held attitudes may be opposed by attitudes of other groups, having other standards which they consider normal.
Thus, heterosexuality is often called "normal" because it is the condition or practice or belief of the greatest number. Once a majority believe that homosexuality is not deviant or evil, then it would become "normal" in that sense. Similar statements could be made in regard to racial segregation vs. integration.
It is also statistically normal that people should die or age, because those are universal conditions.
Normal can also refer to perfection, as in a "normal kidney," meaning a kidney without defect. If most 50-year olds have defective vision, that would be statistically normal for them, and the 50-year-old with perfect vision would be statistically deviant, though his vision would also be "normal" with respect to the perfection definition.
Common speech may refer to norms as socially agreed standards, such that it is the norm to accept a certain practice. There is a command element involved, but a greater suggestion of agreement by the greatest number.
As it stands at present, the subsection on Law is redundant on the definition in first subsection in philosophy. I suggest that the content be deleted or substantially rewritten. Thomasee73 ( talk) 08:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the following in my own words with citation:
This is my reading and interpretation of this text and I have reservations with my mediation and comprehension of the writer's tenets. I feel the article is stronger with it than without it even though it requires additional citations from other works to balance its view. My inclusion isn't as keen as I would like. 49.3.29.32 ( talk) 11:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time to properly address this, but recent edits by User:Quantuminformation concern me in that, at the very least, they are dramatic changes and the new lead begins in an unencyclopedic way. I'm tempted to just revert for that reason but instead I'd appreciate if someone with more time would take a look to verify that these big edits are good ones. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)