This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sense.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisenh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Coenesthesis" redirects here but there is no mention of that term in the article, not even an indication if it is a synonym or merely a vaguely related concept.-- Lieven Smits ( talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
>> Some definitions are here, here, and here. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Humans are by definition animals (we are in the kingdom Animalia), but the opening paragraph seems to use the word 'animal' in a way that excludes humans in error. "Animals also have receptors to sense the world around them, with degrees of capability varying greatly between species. Humans have a comparatively weak sense of smell, while some animals may lack one or more of the traditional five senses." 209.202.60.193 ( talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
>>This appears to have been fixed previously. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My question is unbiased in any form.
I am interested in the "origin" of the five senses. By this I don't mean who created it.
By this I mean to ask is that why these five senses emanated for us to interact with the world around us.
My question is not cryptic. It's a question after all.
How did it arrive to being these known five senses through evolution? And why these five? I cant seem to find any answer for it.
It's wondrous how it was thought of. Sight, Smell, Sound, Taste and Touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.80.67 ( talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
>>As the article makes clear, there aren't five senses. There are between ten and 15 in humans alone, depending on how you define "sense." For more on how and why they evolved, check the Evolution article. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
In several places, this article gives the impression that some human senses are somehow less important, or are recent discoveries. The "traditional five senses" is a product of ignorance and cultural momentum, and reference to that ignorance should be a minor historical footnote, not the framework for the entire article. There is no evidentiary reason to make a distinction between the many senses. I did not edit the article because such a massive overhaul should be the result of consensus-building discussion, discussion which I expected to find here! Finding none, I'm starting it. After fixing the overall structure, we also need to fix all references to "touch," which is NOT a sense, but three senses that our forbears mistakenly conflated: thermoreception, mechanoreception, and itch (as described in the current article). Yes, it's arguable that itch belongs elsewhere, but currently the article is self-contradictory AND wrong. Let's fix both. Your thoughts? Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Having been absent for a while, I am pleased to see some good changes. Referring to "Aristotelian" senses is much much better than "traditional." Thanks to whoever did that. I think it balances the issues I raised here beautifully, preventing the need for a total re-write. There IS good reason to refer to those five differently simply because of traditional expectations, as long as the reference is accurate. I think that has been accomplished now. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Our rectum can detect the kind of matter that attempts or passes through anus. Examples: usually we know that a fart would actully be a shart before letting it out, and sometimes we can break the wind safely although we're in urgent need to poop. We also don't need to look at our poop to verify it's primary consistency after letting it out. Sorry about the crude terminology, but I am not an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.209.106 ( talk) 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
On 12 March 2011, Sbbeef added to the lead text some "fancy names" for human sensory modalities: ophthalmoception, audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception/olfacception, tactioception, magetoception [sic] and kinesthesioception. These words were added along with the extant words thermoception, proprioception, nociception and equilibrioception. The words magetoception and kinesthesioception were, rightly, since removed. If you Google the first list of words today, you get hits, so what's the problem, right?
Turns out, although we've studied and described these senses for decades, somehow usage of these words only started appearing on the Internet in 2011, right around the time that the words were added to the Wikipedia lead text:
Word | (Supposed) associated modality |
Google hits (pages) | Google Scholar hits | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
before 11/3/2011 | after 11/3/2011 | 2004–2010 | 2011–2016 | |||
Invented words | Ophthalmoception | Sight | 2* | >10 | 0 | 38** |
Audioception | Sound | 4 (Artiste name) | >10 | 0 | 47** | |
Gustaoception | Taste | 2* | >10 | 1 (misclassified, actually 2011) | 35** | |
Olfacoception | Smell | 2* | >10 | 0 | 36** | |
Olfacception | Smell | 2* | >10 | 0 | 22** | |
Tactioception | Touch | 2* | >10 | 0 | 41** | |
Extant words | Nociception | Pain | 6 | >10 | 25300 | 20900 |
Equilibrioception | Balance | >10 | >10 | 97 | 235 | |
Pruriception | Itch | 4* | 10 | 18 | 22 | |
Thermoception | Temperature | 12 | >10 | 160 | 317 |
*The seemingly pre-2011 mentions of the invented words are misclassified by Google. Most of the listings represent the same pages, which mention all of the invented words. Manual inspection of the websites reveals that the content is post-2011. On the other hand, manual verification reveals that many of the pre-2011 mentions of the extant words (pruriception, etc.) are genuine.
For the first list of words, the timing, co-occurrence of the words and the nature of the pages suggest that the mentions of the words were the consequence of a single poorly cited addition made in 2011 in a prominent place in the Wikipedia article, and otherwise not present in the literature. This contrasts with the second list of words, which are genuine and present all along in the literature. Per WP:NOR, I motion to change the lead text to the following: "Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognized senses." The words in parentheses are the standard words used in the literature, in the body of the Sense article, and in the respective articles for the sensory modalities.— Goh wz 00:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I added a couple "senses" to the section "Perception not based on a specific sensory organ". For "Agency" I had some good sources and there's an existing article. For "Familiarity" though, I'm probably missing something. I found sources, but they're recent and very technical, being neuroscience studies. It seems wrong to spend most of the paragraph on purely reductive concerns, ie, which part of the brain produces the feeling of familiarity. Clearly there's some tradition of studying things like deja vu and capgras syndrome. The existence of the Mandler 1980 paper, and discussion in Ho et al. 2015, both suggest that the concept of a distinct sense of familiarity has been used in the cognitive sciences for decades. So I think there are probably things some much less technical things which could be said on the topic, but I can't particularly think of them. Dranorter ( talk) 15:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
this article is a great source of info for "sense" in humans. And I think a lot of it would pertain to other primates & a bit less still to other mammals. Is that info organized somewhere on wikipedia too? I can't find it.
I would like to see something in the 'see also' that might give a comparable overview on, well, primates or mammals or both. any guidance? thanks.
skak
E
L 12:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
oops, reading closer now. skak E L 12:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I know something without knowing it before. I have often had the incident that I knew something before it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.157.80.122 ( talk) 13:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This idea comes from Robert Burton, who created the idea of 'cognitive mental sensations': for example the 'a-ha' experience or 'eureka'. These are sensations about our mental experience. Another example would be the feeling of being certain, about an idea or belief: we are generally unaware of feeling anything when we say something, until we are pressed or questioned about it.
I think these are very interesting and important sensations, that are not generally thought of as part of our sensory experience, yet provide clues and insights into psychological phenomenon like delusions, deja-vu, etc.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnu0vE2E4-M&t=840s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Robot 2020 ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There are no sources in this article suggesting that balance is an external sense and to be sure, it's not. Like hunger or visceral pain, etc. balance just tells us about our own bodies and how they are oriented: it does not give us new information about the external world. I have no clue why it's placed alongside smell and vision. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Odd to find nothing in this new-and-much-improved article about the sense of time. Especially given that there's a GREAT article titled " Time perception" already on Wikipedia. Don't have time right now to work on adding it here in a way that will mesh well with the existing. For example, is it internal or external?! Sti11w4ter ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@ SkSlick: please explain how the lead is excessive. At 52,137 characters, this article can comfortably handle four paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The paragraphs are of excessive length and detail. Each of them contain 2-3 paragraphs worth of text that just happens to not be separated by a newline. It fails the goal described in the guidelines you gave. To quote: “ The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway.” SkSlick ( talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead has now been modified and simplified, and much of the content has been moved to the text, so I am removing the "lead too long" tag. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've made some changes to the lead and added a "too technical" template to the top of the article. Per WP:Technical, we're writing for a general audience, and it's important to remember that many of our readers may be encountering a formal description of the senses for the first time. The level of scientific detail in this article, while commendable, needs to be better balanced by non-scientific prose providing commonsense descriptions of these processes and terms. I've made changes to the lead along these lines, and will try to add and prune in the rest of the article if I have time, but I'd appreciate all the help I can get, of course. Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Chemoreceptor 2405:204:51A5:47C8:371D:891A:4CD5:B6EB ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this is actually a really good biology article that isn't extremely human-centric with lots of animal info!
Well, aside from the fact that the subtopic "sensory organs" which talks about sensory organs in general, links all main articles to human anatomy, that I fixed, but overall great article! Tons of animal information! That's good!
What I want is to have more articles with actual info on animals (cough cough underwater vision barely having any animal info despite being a major aspect in marine biology cough cough) so keep up the good work guys! LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist ( talk) 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sense.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisenh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Coenesthesis" redirects here but there is no mention of that term in the article, not even an indication if it is a synonym or merely a vaguely related concept.-- Lieven Smits ( talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
>> Some definitions are here, here, and here. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Humans are by definition animals (we are in the kingdom Animalia), but the opening paragraph seems to use the word 'animal' in a way that excludes humans in error. "Animals also have receptors to sense the world around them, with degrees of capability varying greatly between species. Humans have a comparatively weak sense of smell, while some animals may lack one or more of the traditional five senses." 209.202.60.193 ( talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
>>This appears to have been fixed previously. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My question is unbiased in any form.
I am interested in the "origin" of the five senses. By this I don't mean who created it.
By this I mean to ask is that why these five senses emanated for us to interact with the world around us.
My question is not cryptic. It's a question after all.
How did it arrive to being these known five senses through evolution? And why these five? I cant seem to find any answer for it.
It's wondrous how it was thought of. Sight, Smell, Sound, Taste and Touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.80.67 ( talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
>>As the article makes clear, there aren't five senses. There are between ten and 15 in humans alone, depending on how you define "sense." For more on how and why they evolved, check the Evolution article. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
In several places, this article gives the impression that some human senses are somehow less important, or are recent discoveries. The "traditional five senses" is a product of ignorance and cultural momentum, and reference to that ignorance should be a minor historical footnote, not the framework for the entire article. There is no evidentiary reason to make a distinction between the many senses. I did not edit the article because such a massive overhaul should be the result of consensus-building discussion, discussion which I expected to find here! Finding none, I'm starting it. After fixing the overall structure, we also need to fix all references to "touch," which is NOT a sense, but three senses that our forbears mistakenly conflated: thermoreception, mechanoreception, and itch (as described in the current article). Yes, it's arguable that itch belongs elsewhere, but currently the article is self-contradictory AND wrong. Let's fix both. Your thoughts? Sti11w4ter ( talk) 14:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Having been absent for a while, I am pleased to see some good changes. Referring to "Aristotelian" senses is much much better than "traditional." Thanks to whoever did that. I think it balances the issues I raised here beautifully, preventing the need for a total re-write. There IS good reason to refer to those five differently simply because of traditional expectations, as long as the reference is accurate. I think that has been accomplished now. Sti11w4ter ( talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Our rectum can detect the kind of matter that attempts or passes through anus. Examples: usually we know that a fart would actully be a shart before letting it out, and sometimes we can break the wind safely although we're in urgent need to poop. We also don't need to look at our poop to verify it's primary consistency after letting it out. Sorry about the crude terminology, but I am not an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.209.106 ( talk) 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
On 12 March 2011, Sbbeef added to the lead text some "fancy names" for human sensory modalities: ophthalmoception, audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception/olfacception, tactioception, magetoception [sic] and kinesthesioception. These words were added along with the extant words thermoception, proprioception, nociception and equilibrioception. The words magetoception and kinesthesioception were, rightly, since removed. If you Google the first list of words today, you get hits, so what's the problem, right?
Turns out, although we've studied and described these senses for decades, somehow usage of these words only started appearing on the Internet in 2011, right around the time that the words were added to the Wikipedia lead text:
Word | (Supposed) associated modality |
Google hits (pages) | Google Scholar hits | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
before 11/3/2011 | after 11/3/2011 | 2004–2010 | 2011–2016 | |||
Invented words | Ophthalmoception | Sight | 2* | >10 | 0 | 38** |
Audioception | Sound | 4 (Artiste name) | >10 | 0 | 47** | |
Gustaoception | Taste | 2* | >10 | 1 (misclassified, actually 2011) | 35** | |
Olfacoception | Smell | 2* | >10 | 0 | 36** | |
Olfacception | Smell | 2* | >10 | 0 | 22** | |
Tactioception | Touch | 2* | >10 | 0 | 41** | |
Extant words | Nociception | Pain | 6 | >10 | 25300 | 20900 |
Equilibrioception | Balance | >10 | >10 | 97 | 235 | |
Pruriception | Itch | 4* | 10 | 18 | 22 | |
Thermoception | Temperature | 12 | >10 | 160 | 317 |
*The seemingly pre-2011 mentions of the invented words are misclassified by Google. Most of the listings represent the same pages, which mention all of the invented words. Manual inspection of the websites reveals that the content is post-2011. On the other hand, manual verification reveals that many of the pre-2011 mentions of the extant words (pruriception, etc.) are genuine.
For the first list of words, the timing, co-occurrence of the words and the nature of the pages suggest that the mentions of the words were the consequence of a single poorly cited addition made in 2011 in a prominent place in the Wikipedia article, and otherwise not present in the literature. This contrasts with the second list of words, which are genuine and present all along in the literature. Per WP:NOR, I motion to change the lead text to the following: "Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognized senses." The words in parentheses are the standard words used in the literature, in the body of the Sense article, and in the respective articles for the sensory modalities.— Goh wz 00:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I added a couple "senses" to the section "Perception not based on a specific sensory organ". For "Agency" I had some good sources and there's an existing article. For "Familiarity" though, I'm probably missing something. I found sources, but they're recent and very technical, being neuroscience studies. It seems wrong to spend most of the paragraph on purely reductive concerns, ie, which part of the brain produces the feeling of familiarity. Clearly there's some tradition of studying things like deja vu and capgras syndrome. The existence of the Mandler 1980 paper, and discussion in Ho et al. 2015, both suggest that the concept of a distinct sense of familiarity has been used in the cognitive sciences for decades. So I think there are probably things some much less technical things which could be said on the topic, but I can't particularly think of them. Dranorter ( talk) 15:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
this article is a great source of info for "sense" in humans. And I think a lot of it would pertain to other primates & a bit less still to other mammals. Is that info organized somewhere on wikipedia too? I can't find it.
I would like to see something in the 'see also' that might give a comparable overview on, well, primates or mammals or both. any guidance? thanks.
skak
E
L 12:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
oops, reading closer now. skak E L 12:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I know something without knowing it before. I have often had the incident that I knew something before it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.157.80.122 ( talk) 13:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This idea comes from Robert Burton, who created the idea of 'cognitive mental sensations': for example the 'a-ha' experience or 'eureka'. These are sensations about our mental experience. Another example would be the feeling of being certain, about an idea or belief: we are generally unaware of feeling anything when we say something, until we are pressed or questioned about it.
I think these are very interesting and important sensations, that are not generally thought of as part of our sensory experience, yet provide clues and insights into psychological phenomenon like delusions, deja-vu, etc.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnu0vE2E4-M&t=840s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Robot 2020 ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There are no sources in this article suggesting that balance is an external sense and to be sure, it's not. Like hunger or visceral pain, etc. balance just tells us about our own bodies and how they are oriented: it does not give us new information about the external world. I have no clue why it's placed alongside smell and vision. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Odd to find nothing in this new-and-much-improved article about the sense of time. Especially given that there's a GREAT article titled " Time perception" already on Wikipedia. Don't have time right now to work on adding it here in a way that will mesh well with the existing. For example, is it internal or external?! Sti11w4ter ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@ SkSlick: please explain how the lead is excessive. At 52,137 characters, this article can comfortably handle four paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The paragraphs are of excessive length and detail. Each of them contain 2-3 paragraphs worth of text that just happens to not be separated by a newline. It fails the goal described in the guidelines you gave. To quote: “ The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway.” SkSlick ( talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead has now been modified and simplified, and much of the content has been moved to the text, so I am removing the "lead too long" tag. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've made some changes to the lead and added a "too technical" template to the top of the article. Per WP:Technical, we're writing for a general audience, and it's important to remember that many of our readers may be encountering a formal description of the senses for the first time. The level of scientific detail in this article, while commendable, needs to be better balanced by non-scientific prose providing commonsense descriptions of these processes and terms. I've made changes to the lead along these lines, and will try to add and prune in the rest of the article if I have time, but I'd appreciate all the help I can get, of course. Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Chemoreceptor 2405:204:51A5:47C8:371D:891A:4CD5:B6EB ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this is actually a really good biology article that isn't extremely human-centric with lots of animal info!
Well, aside from the fact that the subtopic "sensory organs" which talks about sensory organs in general, links all main articles to human anatomy, that I fixed, but overall great article! Tons of animal information! That's good!
What I want is to have more articles with actual info on animals (cough cough underwater vision barely having any animal info despite being a major aspect in marine biology cough cough) so keep up the good work guys! LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist ( talk) 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)