This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I appreciate the work that went into the earlier drafts of this article, but basically, they were obviously written by someone who lacks the philosophical sophistication to do this topic justice. It would have been OK if I had to rearrange a little here and there, change a few words, add a few qualifiers. In fact, I had to completely rewrite the thing--nary a sentence was left standing in its original form. Maybe I'm a little sensitive since Swain was on my dissertation committee, but jeez.
Basically, I think we should write articles about what we know enough about to be able to do an acceptable job, where "acceptable job" means "a job such that an expert on the topic would not have to completely rewrite the article from the beginning and change every sentence in it." Unless we have this attitude when we work on the 'pedia, it's going to get filled up with a lot of really bad cruft. -- Larry_Sanger
If "Reliabilism" is the correct spelling why isn't "reliabilist" instead of realiablist"? Ted Longstaffe
visual sense-perception through opaque surfaces in daylight
This seems too obvious of a mistake to not have been corrected, so I must be mistaken about it being a mistake, right?? -- SS 18:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
---
Good call. That "opaque" should be a word in the range of "semi-opaque" up to "transparent." I'm putting my money on "semi-transparent" because "full-transparency" would unnecessarily weaken the argument. Who's going to be the bold one to change the text? Not I, said anonymous.
193.45.244.11
09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)killyourself
I changed it to "non-opaque," since I'm 99% certain that's what it should be. Motorneuron 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)motorneuron
Extensive discussion of Brandom's parrot example but no citation. Please provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 ( talk) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm source for this part of the intro:
One knows that p (p stands for any proposition--e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p through some reliable process.
I only ask as this base principle seems to be shown lacking as per the 'Farmer Field' scenario. Also, I dont think Ive ever read Goldman (or any published reliabilist) proposing this principle. Foolosofur ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I appreciate the work that went into the earlier drafts of this article, but basically, they were obviously written by someone who lacks the philosophical sophistication to do this topic justice. It would have been OK if I had to rearrange a little here and there, change a few words, add a few qualifiers. In fact, I had to completely rewrite the thing--nary a sentence was left standing in its original form. Maybe I'm a little sensitive since Swain was on my dissertation committee, but jeez.
Basically, I think we should write articles about what we know enough about to be able to do an acceptable job, where "acceptable job" means "a job such that an expert on the topic would not have to completely rewrite the article from the beginning and change every sentence in it." Unless we have this attitude when we work on the 'pedia, it's going to get filled up with a lot of really bad cruft. -- Larry_Sanger
If "Reliabilism" is the correct spelling why isn't "reliabilist" instead of realiablist"? Ted Longstaffe
visual sense-perception through opaque surfaces in daylight
This seems too obvious of a mistake to not have been corrected, so I must be mistaken about it being a mistake, right?? -- SS 18:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
---
Good call. That "opaque" should be a word in the range of "semi-opaque" up to "transparent." I'm putting my money on "semi-transparent" because "full-transparency" would unnecessarily weaken the argument. Who's going to be the bold one to change the text? Not I, said anonymous.
193.45.244.11
09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)killyourself
I changed it to "non-opaque," since I'm 99% certain that's what it should be. Motorneuron 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)motorneuron
Extensive discussion of Brandom's parrot example but no citation. Please provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 ( talk) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm source for this part of the intro:
One knows that p (p stands for any proposition--e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p through some reliable process.
I only ask as this base principle seems to be shown lacking as per the 'Farmer Field' scenario. Also, I dont think Ive ever read Goldman (or any published reliabilist) proposing this principle. Foolosofur ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)