![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
An illustrative table is construed as "overall bad editing" at Talk:Counterargument#Coatracking.
The value, utility and necessity of the table are each demonstrated by the terse diff which accompanied the blanket deletion of the illustrative counterexample table -- QED.
It appears not to be generally understood that for a given argument, there is often a large number of counterarguments, some of which are not compatible with each other. If this table is incompatible with our project goals, this thread will help clarify the point. The table presents the views of a Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.
It is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitute Japan's inherent territory .... Until then, they had never expressed any objections, including to the fact that the Islands were included in the area over which the United States exercised the administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. [1]
There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands. Moreover, for example "The Republic of China New Atlas" published in China in 1933 and "World Atlas" published in China in 1960 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan. [1]
Support Statement | Type | Support Statement | Type | Support Statement | Type | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. [6] | Letter | Partial image of newspaper article: "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953.
[6] *NOTE: In second character cluster of the second line of the published text, see Japanese kanji characters identifying Senkaku Islands (尖 閣 諸 島, Senkaku Shotō) [7] |
Article | World Atlas published in China in 1960 [6] *NOTE: At A, see Japanese kanji characters identifying the Senkaku Islands (尖 閣 諸 島, Senkaku Shotō); and at B, see maritime boundary between Taiwan and Japan | Map |
Response 1 | Response 2 | Response 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rebuttal and refutation of Chinese irredentist statement, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
This small article has enhanced significance in the argumentative dialogue which is essential to the continued success of our collaborative editing project.
The term " counterargument" is highlighted at WP:Dispute resolution in the pyramid-shaped graphic of a "hierarchy of disagreement" based on the essay "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham.
If my writing is unclear or inadequately presented, please ask questions.
What I'm looking for is (a) agreement with explanations why this is an excellent table in the context of Counterargument; or (b) disagreement with explanations which help me to understand what I do not. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you resolve the Wikipedia article creep paradox in WP:Article creep? Can you even well define it? Is that list one example, or the number of examples in the list, or the number of examples in the list plus one? A start to a resolution was made by distinguishing examples from meta-examples, a la the Frege church ontology. Does the notion of meta-examples there introduce an intentional context? PPdd ( talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between the creep paradox and the Frege-Church thing (but I don't know Frege-Church, only the WP article). Isn't the creep paradox just one of those infinite list problems. For example, if we are going to say anything with certainty about the class of real numbers, we must know all the numbers that belong to that class, if we know all the numbers that belong to that class we should be able to list all the numbers that belong to that class, but the numbers that belong to that class are infinite, therefore, we can not list them, therefore, we can not be certain about anything that is said about the class of real numbers. I think Zeno's “Achilles and the tortoise” is the same sort of thing.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 04:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
A significant number of countries in the world are spanish speaking. Yet citation of journals from these countries is rare. Información Filosófica is a journal that has been around for 65 years, but is now up for AfD. Does anyone have an explanation for the paucity of citations of Spanish language journals by English language ones? PPdd ( talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a newbie. I hope you'll forgive me if I started off on the wrong foot.
I was motivated to sign in and change the above article because, frankly, it is embarrassingly bad.
I agree 100% with all the criticisms in the top box at the Article
The section on Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity is irrelevant to the subject. It discusses a book on the history of science and Popper's hypothesis-falsification philosophy. Its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political theory rather than to enlighten the reader.
The section The role of the scientific community does not properly place objectivity in the context of the various scientific methods.
The section Deliberate misrepresentation is on the entirely different subject of fraud. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political agenda.
The section Objectivity in experimental set-up and interpretation appears to introduce a theory of psychology in objectivity - but offers no supporting evidence and does not say why it is relevant to the main subject. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political viewpoint of science.
The section Objectivity in measurement is a statement of the obvious. While I appreciate that this does not necessarily make the section redundant, it could be far simpler and clearer.
But the worst part is the beginning. The article dives straight into a confusing discussion on measurement which contains most of the original research and unverified claims referred to in the top box.
I suggest that this article needs to be re-written, beginning with a simple definition of objectivity.
I further suggest that we should support the merging of this article with Objectivity-Philosophy. That way this article could be re-written in a short paragraph or two.
I would be happy to do this work, but I think (given the nature of the Article at present) I will need some backup to ensure that my edit stays up.
What can I do to get support for and edit? -- Stephenrwheeler ( talk) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion about the above mentioned subject. But please respond here.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested that the new paragraph Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments does not enhance the article amd should be deleted - see talk page Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph . Opinions of other editors invited at Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph — Philogos ( talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The arbitration on the Monty Hall problem is of interest to philosophers specialized in decision theory, philosophy of probability, philosophy of action, philosophy of science, etc.
The proposed decision contains wording about "complex Bayesian solution" of special concern.
Also, it may be useful to be aware of the language regarding original research versus exposition using secondary sources, which is also discussed on the WikiProject Mathematics's talk page. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Would a WikiProject Philosophy editor review Aha! Effect for accuracy and whether it is correctly named? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages for related history. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Instant is under discussion, see Talk:Instant. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that is a long headline. Anyway, the idea is that, starting around the first of April, there might be some sort of broadbased discussion of the religion related content here. A basic page for some ideas of such a meeting can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting, although I do intend to create a wikipedia space page for the meeting, or maybe move the existing page. Anyway, it is my hope that there would be one month of general discussion of the topic, and then later a second month for specific ideas and or actions which might or might not be taken up for, perhaps, the next year, with maybe another meeting following a year later.
Anyway, having gotten all the exposition out of the way, I was wondering whether the members of this project believe it might make sense to expand the scope of the meeting to include philosophy as well. Ethics and religious philosophy are both I think "overlap" territories of the two projects, and I don't think it would necessarily hurt to have parties involved in both subjects involved. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 14:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of free election is under discussion, see Talk:Free election (Polish throne). 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Notability, For seminal ideas in philosophy, like creating the concept of "notability" in Wikipedia article space. "There is something new under the sun" is true if there is something new under the sun. PPdd ( talk) 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Above is the SINGLE Barnstar I gave to Logicalgregory, for being the first to conceive of the concept of Notability at WP, on this very talk page. If you are the typical philosopher who wears a red contact lens on your left eye and a green lens on your right eye to work, and if you also have vertically oriented eyes (like a spider), or equivalently, if you rotate your head 90 degrees, you will see the section headers - "The Barnstar of Notability in Philosophy" above as a single image in 3-D. This works because the infinitesimal perspective point at which Descartre located your humuncular soul in your pineal gland is actually a vertical “bi-point”, and is related to the “ Land Effect”, and. Robert M. Yost of UCLA. Yost showed the class the Land Effect in his undergraduate Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind class. He then went on to tell the class about how, in the 1960’s, he was legally given increasingly large megadoses of LSD in a government funded experiment at UCLA, but he noticed no effect at all, no matter how much they gave him. Yost went on to explain how Land invented the Polaroid camera, then went to work for the CIA, which funded the UCLA LSD experiment on him. And if you were stimulated by this to wonder " What is it like to be a bat?", ask Logician Lewis Caroll's Cheshire Cat - "Alice:'I see nothing', Cat:"'My, you have good eyes'". Here, here, does anyone here hear WP:Silence? PPdd ( talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Logicalgregories frank admission of his age above, stimulated me to ask who remembers their first philosophy book.
Since this is a talk page of a WikiProject, not a chat room, if you list your first memory, you then should apply it to how others might improve Wikipedia.
My first one was
Hans Riechenbach's
The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, when I was about 12 or 13 years old. I don't remember anything in it, except that it made me want more, and that he starts off with an extensive quote of Hegel(?), after which he points out that if the reader is mystified, but after reading it over and over, can speak the laguage, even though he or she doesn't really understand what they are saying, it's because it is utter nonsense. I therefore propose merging all Hegel related articles to be subsections of the
nonsense article. (Incidentally, I just missspelled
Hans Reichenbach, but my misspelling produces 1,850 results on Google, so I am not alone. (It only produced one result on Google Scholar.)
PPdd (
talk)
05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
(Misquoting T.S. Elliot) Leave your empty forms in ivory towers and participate in Reality! The article sucks (like vacuum of a box filled to the brim with nothing). But this WikiProject rates it as "High importance", and the Version 1.0 Editorial Team rates it as a "vital article". Check it out. The nothing article is also lacking, so check it out, too ( checking an empty box does not always mean its then full). PPdd ( talk) 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.
Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You are either looking for the term "autological" which describes a word that describes itself (i.e. the word "short" is a short word and therefore autological, whereas the word "long" does not describe itself, and is therefore not autological, but rather heterological.) or you are looking for the term "self-fulfilling" statement (e.g. "This is a formal written notice.").
Greg Bard (
talk)
21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the "MILHIST" project? Is there a link to it?-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Philogo has been arguing with me and Linsabreeny over on the argument talk page. There are a couple of issues of substance here.
First, he insists that an "argument" in logic and logic alone be the topic of the "argument" page, and even though he admits that logic is also a branch of philosophy, he says he has never heard of a philosophical argument. I believe that arguments in the sense that the article is discussing them can be both logical (that is, employed in everyday discourse, scientific discourse, philosophical discourse, etc. but with specific logical features), and "philosophical" (in the sense of structured, rational argument on important general themes) and that it does us no good here to take sides and say certain arguments are either "logical" or "philosophical."
I have included wording to that effect in the topic sentence of the article and the lead, so as to avoid forking articles for "logical arguments" and "philosophical arguments." Since argument, rational argument, is the medium of philosophical exchange, and since logic is also (but not only) a branch of philosophy, I think this change helps.
(Currently, there is a redirect from rational argument to argument, and there is an important article on " argumentation theory" that is not about logical or philosophical arguments per se, but rather "the interdisciplinary study of how humans should, can, and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning.")
However, Philogo demands that any discussion of argument on that page be confined to formal logic, and therefore any discussion about what the point of an argument is, or its source of validity (e.g. logical truth vs. justification vs. some pragmatic test), or its approach or philosophical method of reasoning, is out of place.
Second, Philogo seems to believe that if an argument can be classified as "deductive" or "inductive" (or presumably some of the other argument types on that page) there can be no more relevant logical features to be explained about it.
Charles Taylor, in his Philosophical Arguments, disagrees – including with regard to transcendental arguments (which are misleadingly named, and not really "transcendental" in any sense). So does philosopher of science Ian Hacking, as well as Thomas Kuhn, John Dewey, George Herbert Mead, Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger and many, many others who have influenced or been at the centre of 20th century philosophy.
One of the leading critical theorists today, Nikolas Kompridis has published a book that discusses some of these logical features in depth. It also discusses a wide range of modern philosophical arguments and forms of argument, all the way back to Kant and Hegel. The book is called Critique and Disclosure – as in Kant's seminal Critiques and Heidegger's concept of " world disclosure", an idea which Heidegger considered his own most important contribution to modern Western philosophy.
Using terminology from Heidegger, and other sources that share the same terminology (including dozens of other primary and secondary sources), Kompridis has called a family of these arguments "world-disclosing" (in the ontological sense of "world" – i.e. bearing on conditions of intelligibility). The notability of this subject is indicated in a review of the book published here.
I created a section on "world-disclosing" arguments, that Philogo has been deleting in spite of two editors including myself currently being against such deletion, and in spite of it being extensively sourced and constantly developed.
Philogo believes that a majority view from February (consisting of himself and Machine Elf) supports his deletion of this section, while Linsabreeny and I strongly disagree.
The section has changed considerably since then, including in response to Philogo's own criticism.
Philogo has, in my opinion, been exhibiting behaviour that very strongly suggests a sense of ownership over the page. In my opinion, his criticisms have greatly improved the content I have been adding, but he has refused to comment on the changes, and instead has engaged in a slow edit war by continually deleting it.
If someone could please help out with this, especially on the issues of substance (1. the topic of the "argument" page, i.e. logic vs. philosophy; and 2. the inclusion of a section on "world-disclosing" arguments), it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Walkinxyz ( talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Long story short: Philogo's actions and arguments were not reasonable here, eg. after a pause, he quietly wiped all Walkinxyz's cited and discussed work -in an edit marked minor. I personally think an editor caught doing that should apologise and shuffle off discretely rather than come back with more non-philosophy.
Also, bear in mind that MachineElf followed Walkinxyz here from [a previous article|Appeal to nature]] where he did little else but test Walkinxyz's and my own patience also. So then he thought it entirely appropriate he should get involved with this dispute too.
I'm pretty much out after my previous experience (with m.e.) , except for warring when necessary (no wasted discussion and certainly bloodless), and contributing links and diffs to a proper review of this situation in the wikiproject - if it might ever muster one. If you are an intelligent wikipedian or an admin?, all this is more your concern than mine.
Whatever Walkinxyz managed to make out of the hassle (much of his new content is currently precariously threatened by article subject having been restricted to "logic") - his neighbours have not been helping him at all.
Lisnabreeny ( talk) 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I consider the recent rewrite of my recent rewrite rather unfortunate. Those interested in the field, please see my remarks: Talk:Philosophy of perception#Lede rewrite (April 2011). Morton Shumway— talk 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
It has been proposed that Argument form be merged into Logical Form. Unfortunately neither article does the subject justice— Philogos ( talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
A debate about Ralph Waldo Emerson's title has been simmering for a few days ( see here). Additional comments are very much appreciated. Thanks. - Artoasis ( talk) 03:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody with better mental faculties than me help me out regarding criticisms of AT. The theory is under represented by those to whom it applies and, in my estimation, the (writers) criticisms are detracting from it's purpose and the esoteric knowledge it represents. -- Filmmaker2011 ( talk) 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Name_of_the_philosopher. Please look for it there. Skomorokh 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Church is the reincarnation of Frege". Does anyone know who first said that? Was it Carnap, Straus, Einstein, Godel, or Riechenbach? PPdd ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Much ado about [[nothing on the talk pages there now; Discussion of visual representaions of nothingness; The elements of the empty set and the elements of a mathematics made from nothing; WikiProject Death member comments on theology
PPdd ( talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
A banned sockpuppeteer has been editing articles on Terence_McKenna, Omega point and Teilhard de Chardin since before Christmas. I haven't reverted any of it as for all I know their edits here might be okay but in Physics they are just weird and wrong. They are:
And they've used at least the following ips based in St Petersburg:
Cheers Dmcq ( talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The editor Lorem has deleted a large part of the article Metaphysics without first seeking the views of other editors. See the talk page. Vandalism? — Philogos (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Philogos ( talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have sought editors' views at talk:metaphysics#Recent deletion as to whether the deletion should be reverted. It would be appreciated if you would epres your view there— Philogos ( talk) 01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The deletion was reverted. The article however lack citations— Philogos ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Virtually no discussion of the book at all, just a CliffsNotes sort of article. Dougweller ( talk) 16:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, nothing about its importance. I think it is true to say that modern science (and thereby industrial civilization) is based on ideas first put forward in this book. Quite possibly the most important book of all time. If anybody wants a copy, there was one for sale on ebay recently; only 60,000 Pounds Sterling.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Doug!-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a question on how to organize Category:Literary critics over at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Literature#Question re: Category:Literary critics. Please chime in. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a not-quite-edit-war brewing at Four-dimensionalism. Could an as-yet uninvolved editor or two take a look at the talk page discussion and article history and weigh in. The primary problem (as I saw) was a lede that was overly detailed and essaylike and one editor (Stho002) refusing to work collaboratively. In the interest of disclosure, and to stave off any appearance of forum shopping, I'd already filed a WQA but I think it's to the level of content discussion now and within the scope of this project. Thanks BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 19:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Stho002 ( talk) 03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did go there only based on this request, and have no previous involvement. I do sympathize with many of your points: I too despise the typical "quote and cite" philosophy article. Take something as important as the problem of evil. That's the worst kind of "not an essay" article; in fact, it manages to evade the contemporary debate altogether and instead reports on every irrelevant and long-abandoned objection ever made. Some of our style guidelines, such as WP:YOU, are unnecessarily restrictive and disallow the kind of writing that makes difficult philosophy accessible. Take the following from SEP on temporal parts:
You're performing an amazing trick right now: you're in two places at once. How do you manage to be down there, near the floor, and yet also be a metre or two up in the air? Well, it's not so very amazing: your feet are down there on the floor, and your head is up in the air. Having spatial parts enables you to be in several different places, and to have different properties in different places: you're cold down there on the tiled floor, and also warm up there by the heater, because your feet are cold and your head is warm... [P]eople take up time as well as taking up space: you existed yesterday, and, unless reading this article is a real strain, you will exist tomorrow too. Just as you can have different properties at different places (hot up here, cold down there), you can have different properties at different times (yesterday you hadn't heard of temporal parts, by tomorrow you'll know plenty about them).
I really don't see why such writing should be considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But here is the deal: either we challenge these style guidelines globally, which you can do on the talk page of each policy or style guide, or we stick with them. An encyclopedia needs to be at least somewhat consistent from article to article! When it comes to style, though, I'd rather agree with what you say, "we should be more guided by whether the article explains things well, and less by robotic adherence to strict policy". And unless you want to have this highly specialized article featured on the Wikipedia front page, there is no need to enforce every single style guideline fanatically.
However, Wikipedia is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous. If a SEP article contains a non-trivial proposition without attributing it to anyone, you know it is the interpretation of the author of the article. You cannot do that on Wikipedia! Here everything unattributed must be neutral, obvious and uncontroversial. You need to take interpretations directly from the secondary literature, present it without adding any further significant interpretation, and properly attribute it to the person who made that interpretation. This is a point where compromise is not possible. You cannot ignore Philogos's citation requests. They wouldn't add such requests if it were obvious to them. While it is easier to complain from the sidelines, the burden is on the person who wants to add material to comply with content policies. Most importantly, when you find these requests unreasonable, you explain why it is unreasonable and you may ask here for second opinions, but you do not call that editor "part of the problem" unless your goal is to be kicked off Wikipedia as quickly as possible. Vesal ( talk) 10:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit history looks too frantic, too frequent critical 'feedback' or 'instruction' and 'protection' of the article, and then resulting energy wasting discussion. Unless there is something urgently bad added to a "start class" or similar article, experienced wp editors should not intervein immediately, daily or hourly, as someone invests their time effort and experience to improve it. Let them a respectful amount of space to get somewhere, as much as you wish your experienced or considered input to be ultimately respected. In good time take the article forward yourself if possible, eg. checking if there are cites and adding them yourself before demanding them. This is often easier to do than requesting it done and explaining at length why it is crucial. The comment about getting "kicked off Wikipedia" for complaint is a bit harsh. I have been maligned by an editor here, eg called "a pathetic persistent liar" etc, and a previous administrative incident review about the conflict ended without a single admin comment - it was simply archived. I have also been slightly rude to Philogo about a mistake where he wiped another editor's discussed contribution to an article in a single edit marked minor. I considered apologising for tone, but not with no admission of the error, and in this area of WP at least there seems to be a vacuum of actual moderation. Certainly civil standards are much much preferable, but frustration at unchecked problem behaviour can quite fairly produce outbursts. It is something to watch out for here, for your own tranquility rather than supposed WP process. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
— Philogos ( talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a starting point only, and I had nothing to do with the last two of those references above, so they may actually go, and be replaced by better ones ... it due course. I must protest that Philogos has gone and rewritten the lede yet again, adding nothing of substance, after Vesal and I had both settled on an acceptable lede ... Stho002 ( talk) 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The revised lede was reverted three times by user:130.216.201.45 — Philogos ( talk) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
BrideOfKripkenstein.: At your suggestion I took a look at this article, shortened the lede, made a few suggestions and proposed a new lede. It appears to me, however, that it is difficult for editors to assist with this article without being subject to personal abuse and for their edits to be summarily reverted. The lede states In philosophy, four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism. It quotes Sider (Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231. http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf) as using the term to mean perdurantism. (Sider's actual words are
Persistence through time is like extension through space. A road has spatial parts in the subregions of the region of space it occupies; likewise, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. This view — known variously as four dimensionalism, the doctrine of temporal parts, and the theory that objects “perdure” — is opposed to “three dimensionalism”, the doctrine that things “endure”, or are “wholly present”.
— Sider, Four Dimensionalism, Philosophical Review 106
No text is cited to verify the use of the term to mean eternalism. If the term four-dimensionalism refers to either eternalism or perdurantism, and we have articles on both: eternalism and perdurantism, and, for good measure, temporal parts then this article appears to be redundant, a point already raised on the discussion page. — Philogos ( talk) 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The term four-dimensionalism is often used without specification of exactly what is meant. Often, it is used in the context of the issue of personal identity over time. For example, Robinson (1985: 299-300) stated that 'the m[ultiple].o[ccupancy]. view, as canvassed below, is not my first choice amongst approaches to fission cases. I prefer the four-dimensionalist account (itself an m.o. analysis) presented with exemplary clarity by David Lewis in 'Survival and Identity' '. Unfortunately, Lewis (1976), at least in the first edition of this book, does not appear to use the term four-dimensionalism at all! Muis (2005) offers an explanation of the terminology which (fairly) clearly equates four-dimensionalism with perdurantism (by using the term 'four-dimensional' in relation to perdurantism only), not eternalism, but does so in an opening paragraph that mentions all four -isms (i.e., eternalism vs. presentism, endurantism vs. perdurantism), stating that 'in analytical metaphysics, there are three, closely related, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' [my bold], the third debate being A-theory vs. B-theory of time (see below). Therefore, it appears to be very difficult to disentangle the issues or work out any firm terminological distinctions. It is unclear if all the literature exactly follows the terminology of Muis (2005).
>However, Wikipedia is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous< I disagree! Articles here are not anonymous! The edit history is preserved and accessible. It shows who did what. Edits can be "somewhat anonymous", if the edit is by an IP or an account that doesn't reveal their "true identity" on their user page, but can be "no way anonymous" if "true identity" is revealed (something I must get around to doing on my user page here). There is actually no significant difference with "those other encyclopedias" in that regard. If anything, WP is less anonymous, as you can't tell exactly who wrote what sentence in a typical encyclopedia... Stho002 ( talk) 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
>You need to take interpretations directly from the secondary literature, present it without adding any further significant interpretation, and properly attribute it to the person who made that interpretation. This is a point where compromise is not possible< Again, I disagree! The rule is self-defeating. In philosophy, when someone (P) publishes an interpretation of Q, P's interpretation typically stands just as much in need of interpretation as Q! You can't break out of the circle and say here is P's interpretation, unless you either (1) just quote P directly, or (2) interpret P. If we go for (1), then WP becomes just "Wikiquotes", and the quote will typically be so difficult to interpret that it is useless (see clarification below). Hence, (2) is the only real option. Stho002 ( talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: the only way to interpret P is in context of everything that one knows about the topic, but you can't cite everything that you know about the topic! Hence, an interpretation in philosophy is uncitable (except perhaps in a PhD thesis with a huge bibliography). The reader of a WP article on philosophy just needs to be aware that what they are reading has, of necessity, a rather significant component of interpretation, which, as I pointed out, is not the same as opinion, bias, etc. Stho002 ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
>A simple example of original synthesis:
>The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
>Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to...
But, you can imply the same conclusion, without combining anything, purely by sequencing, thus:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since the creation of the UN there have been 160 wars throughout the world. ... Stho002 ( talk) 03:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I offered a suggestion, and was told that the current parties to the dispute like their own versions better, so maybe more eyes are not needed after all. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Stho002 ( talk) has just reverted the lede again (and, for good measure removed the 'expert needed' flag). — Philogos ( talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Philogos ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The additional refs are the works cited by Sider in the lede which Stho002 has reverted yet again. The addition of <nowicki> citation needed</nowiki> does not seem to me to be adding too much detail for a lede, and making it obscure again— Philogos ( talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
An illustrative table is construed as "overall bad editing" at Talk:Counterargument#Coatracking.
The value, utility and necessity of the table are each demonstrated by the terse diff which accompanied the blanket deletion of the illustrative counterexample table -- QED.
It appears not to be generally understood that for a given argument, there is often a large number of counterarguments, some of which are not compatible with each other. If this table is incompatible with our project goals, this thread will help clarify the point. The table presents the views of a Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.
It is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitute Japan's inherent territory .... Until then, they had never expressed any objections, including to the fact that the Islands were included in the area over which the United States exercised the administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. [1]
There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands. Moreover, for example "The Republic of China New Atlas" published in China in 1933 and "World Atlas" published in China in 1960 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan. [1]
Support Statement | Type | Support Statement | Type | Support Statement | Type | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. [6] | Letter | Partial image of newspaper article: "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953.
[6] *NOTE: In second character cluster of the second line of the published text, see Japanese kanji characters identifying Senkaku Islands (尖 閣 諸 島, Senkaku Shotō) [7] |
Article | World Atlas published in China in 1960 [6] *NOTE: At A, see Japanese kanji characters identifying the Senkaku Islands (尖 閣 諸 島, Senkaku Shotō); and at B, see maritime boundary between Taiwan and Japan | Map |
Response 1 | Response 2 | Response 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rebuttal and refutation of Chinese irredentist statement, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 [6] |
This small article has enhanced significance in the argumentative dialogue which is essential to the continued success of our collaborative editing project.
The term " counterargument" is highlighted at WP:Dispute resolution in the pyramid-shaped graphic of a "hierarchy of disagreement" based on the essay "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham.
If my writing is unclear or inadequately presented, please ask questions.
What I'm looking for is (a) agreement with explanations why this is an excellent table in the context of Counterargument; or (b) disagreement with explanations which help me to understand what I do not. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you resolve the Wikipedia article creep paradox in WP:Article creep? Can you even well define it? Is that list one example, or the number of examples in the list, or the number of examples in the list plus one? A start to a resolution was made by distinguishing examples from meta-examples, a la the Frege church ontology. Does the notion of meta-examples there introduce an intentional context? PPdd ( talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between the creep paradox and the Frege-Church thing (but I don't know Frege-Church, only the WP article). Isn't the creep paradox just one of those infinite list problems. For example, if we are going to say anything with certainty about the class of real numbers, we must know all the numbers that belong to that class, if we know all the numbers that belong to that class we should be able to list all the numbers that belong to that class, but the numbers that belong to that class are infinite, therefore, we can not list them, therefore, we can not be certain about anything that is said about the class of real numbers. I think Zeno's “Achilles and the tortoise” is the same sort of thing.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 04:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
A significant number of countries in the world are spanish speaking. Yet citation of journals from these countries is rare. Información Filosófica is a journal that has been around for 65 years, but is now up for AfD. Does anyone have an explanation for the paucity of citations of Spanish language journals by English language ones? PPdd ( talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a newbie. I hope you'll forgive me if I started off on the wrong foot.
I was motivated to sign in and change the above article because, frankly, it is embarrassingly bad.
I agree 100% with all the criticisms in the top box at the Article
The section on Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity is irrelevant to the subject. It discusses a book on the history of science and Popper's hypothesis-falsification philosophy. Its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political theory rather than to enlighten the reader.
The section The role of the scientific community does not properly place objectivity in the context of the various scientific methods.
The section Deliberate misrepresentation is on the entirely different subject of fraud. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political agenda.
The section Objectivity in experimental set-up and interpretation appears to introduce a theory of psychology in objectivity - but offers no supporting evidence and does not say why it is relevant to the main subject. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political viewpoint of science.
The section Objectivity in measurement is a statement of the obvious. While I appreciate that this does not necessarily make the section redundant, it could be far simpler and clearer.
But the worst part is the beginning. The article dives straight into a confusing discussion on measurement which contains most of the original research and unverified claims referred to in the top box.
I suggest that this article needs to be re-written, beginning with a simple definition of objectivity.
I further suggest that we should support the merging of this article with Objectivity-Philosophy. That way this article could be re-written in a short paragraph or two.
I would be happy to do this work, but I think (given the nature of the Article at present) I will need some backup to ensure that my edit stays up.
What can I do to get support for and edit? -- Stephenrwheeler ( talk) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion about the above mentioned subject. But please respond here.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested that the new paragraph Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments does not enhance the article amd should be deleted - see talk page Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph . Opinions of other editors invited at Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph — Philogos ( talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The arbitration on the Monty Hall problem is of interest to philosophers specialized in decision theory, philosophy of probability, philosophy of action, philosophy of science, etc.
The proposed decision contains wording about "complex Bayesian solution" of special concern.
Also, it may be useful to be aware of the language regarding original research versus exposition using secondary sources, which is also discussed on the WikiProject Mathematics's talk page. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Would a WikiProject Philosophy editor review Aha! Effect for accuracy and whether it is correctly named? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages for related history. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Instant is under discussion, see Talk:Instant. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that is a long headline. Anyway, the idea is that, starting around the first of April, there might be some sort of broadbased discussion of the religion related content here. A basic page for some ideas of such a meeting can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting, although I do intend to create a wikipedia space page for the meeting, or maybe move the existing page. Anyway, it is my hope that there would be one month of general discussion of the topic, and then later a second month for specific ideas and or actions which might or might not be taken up for, perhaps, the next year, with maybe another meeting following a year later.
Anyway, having gotten all the exposition out of the way, I was wondering whether the members of this project believe it might make sense to expand the scope of the meeting to include philosophy as well. Ethics and religious philosophy are both I think "overlap" territories of the two projects, and I don't think it would necessarily hurt to have parties involved in both subjects involved. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 14:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of free election is under discussion, see Talk:Free election (Polish throne). 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Notability, For seminal ideas in philosophy, like creating the concept of "notability" in Wikipedia article space. "There is something new under the sun" is true if there is something new under the sun. PPdd ( talk) 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Above is the SINGLE Barnstar I gave to Logicalgregory, for being the first to conceive of the concept of Notability at WP, on this very talk page. If you are the typical philosopher who wears a red contact lens on your left eye and a green lens on your right eye to work, and if you also have vertically oriented eyes (like a spider), or equivalently, if you rotate your head 90 degrees, you will see the section headers - "The Barnstar of Notability in Philosophy" above as a single image in 3-D. This works because the infinitesimal perspective point at which Descartre located your humuncular soul in your pineal gland is actually a vertical “bi-point”, and is related to the “ Land Effect”, and. Robert M. Yost of UCLA. Yost showed the class the Land Effect in his undergraduate Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind class. He then went on to tell the class about how, in the 1960’s, he was legally given increasingly large megadoses of LSD in a government funded experiment at UCLA, but he noticed no effect at all, no matter how much they gave him. Yost went on to explain how Land invented the Polaroid camera, then went to work for the CIA, which funded the UCLA LSD experiment on him. And if you were stimulated by this to wonder " What is it like to be a bat?", ask Logician Lewis Caroll's Cheshire Cat - "Alice:'I see nothing', Cat:"'My, you have good eyes'". Here, here, does anyone here hear WP:Silence? PPdd ( talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Logicalgregories frank admission of his age above, stimulated me to ask who remembers their first philosophy book.
Since this is a talk page of a WikiProject, not a chat room, if you list your first memory, you then should apply it to how others might improve Wikipedia.
My first one was
Hans Riechenbach's
The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, when I was about 12 or 13 years old. I don't remember anything in it, except that it made me want more, and that he starts off with an extensive quote of Hegel(?), after which he points out that if the reader is mystified, but after reading it over and over, can speak the laguage, even though he or she doesn't really understand what they are saying, it's because it is utter nonsense. I therefore propose merging all Hegel related articles to be subsections of the
nonsense article. (Incidentally, I just missspelled
Hans Reichenbach, but my misspelling produces 1,850 results on Google, so I am not alone. (It only produced one result on Google Scholar.)
PPdd (
talk)
05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
(Misquoting T.S. Elliot) Leave your empty forms in ivory towers and participate in Reality! The article sucks (like vacuum of a box filled to the brim with nothing). But this WikiProject rates it as "High importance", and the Version 1.0 Editorial Team rates it as a "vital article". Check it out. The nothing article is also lacking, so check it out, too ( checking an empty box does not always mean its then full). PPdd ( talk) 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.
Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You are either looking for the term "autological" which describes a word that describes itself (i.e. the word "short" is a short word and therefore autological, whereas the word "long" does not describe itself, and is therefore not autological, but rather heterological.) or you are looking for the term "self-fulfilling" statement (e.g. "This is a formal written notice.").
Greg Bard (
talk)
21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the "MILHIST" project? Is there a link to it?-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Philogo has been arguing with me and Linsabreeny over on the argument talk page. There are a couple of issues of substance here.
First, he insists that an "argument" in logic and logic alone be the topic of the "argument" page, and even though he admits that logic is also a branch of philosophy, he says he has never heard of a philosophical argument. I believe that arguments in the sense that the article is discussing them can be both logical (that is, employed in everyday discourse, scientific discourse, philosophical discourse, etc. but with specific logical features), and "philosophical" (in the sense of structured, rational argument on important general themes) and that it does us no good here to take sides and say certain arguments are either "logical" or "philosophical."
I have included wording to that effect in the topic sentence of the article and the lead, so as to avoid forking articles for "logical arguments" and "philosophical arguments." Since argument, rational argument, is the medium of philosophical exchange, and since logic is also (but not only) a branch of philosophy, I think this change helps.
(Currently, there is a redirect from rational argument to argument, and there is an important article on " argumentation theory" that is not about logical or philosophical arguments per se, but rather "the interdisciplinary study of how humans should, can, and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning.")
However, Philogo demands that any discussion of argument on that page be confined to formal logic, and therefore any discussion about what the point of an argument is, or its source of validity (e.g. logical truth vs. justification vs. some pragmatic test), or its approach or philosophical method of reasoning, is out of place.
Second, Philogo seems to believe that if an argument can be classified as "deductive" or "inductive" (or presumably some of the other argument types on that page) there can be no more relevant logical features to be explained about it.
Charles Taylor, in his Philosophical Arguments, disagrees – including with regard to transcendental arguments (which are misleadingly named, and not really "transcendental" in any sense). So does philosopher of science Ian Hacking, as well as Thomas Kuhn, John Dewey, George Herbert Mead, Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger and many, many others who have influenced or been at the centre of 20th century philosophy.
One of the leading critical theorists today, Nikolas Kompridis has published a book that discusses some of these logical features in depth. It also discusses a wide range of modern philosophical arguments and forms of argument, all the way back to Kant and Hegel. The book is called Critique and Disclosure – as in Kant's seminal Critiques and Heidegger's concept of " world disclosure", an idea which Heidegger considered his own most important contribution to modern Western philosophy.
Using terminology from Heidegger, and other sources that share the same terminology (including dozens of other primary and secondary sources), Kompridis has called a family of these arguments "world-disclosing" (in the ontological sense of "world" – i.e. bearing on conditions of intelligibility). The notability of this subject is indicated in a review of the book published here.
I created a section on "world-disclosing" arguments, that Philogo has been deleting in spite of two editors including myself currently being against such deletion, and in spite of it being extensively sourced and constantly developed.
Philogo believes that a majority view from February (consisting of himself and Machine Elf) supports his deletion of this section, while Linsabreeny and I strongly disagree.
The section has changed considerably since then, including in response to Philogo's own criticism.
Philogo has, in my opinion, been exhibiting behaviour that very strongly suggests a sense of ownership over the page. In my opinion, his criticisms have greatly improved the content I have been adding, but he has refused to comment on the changes, and instead has engaged in a slow edit war by continually deleting it.
If someone could please help out with this, especially on the issues of substance (1. the topic of the "argument" page, i.e. logic vs. philosophy; and 2. the inclusion of a section on "world-disclosing" arguments), it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Walkinxyz ( talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Long story short: Philogo's actions and arguments were not reasonable here, eg. after a pause, he quietly wiped all Walkinxyz's cited and discussed work -in an edit marked minor. I personally think an editor caught doing that should apologise and shuffle off discretely rather than come back with more non-philosophy.
Also, bear in mind that MachineElf followed Walkinxyz here from [a previous article|Appeal to nature]] where he did little else but test Walkinxyz's and my own patience also. So then he thought it entirely appropriate he should get involved with this dispute too.
I'm pretty much out after my previous experience (with m.e.) , except for warring when necessary (no wasted discussion and certainly bloodless), and contributing links and diffs to a proper review of this situation in the wikiproject - if it might ever muster one. If you are an intelligent wikipedian or an admin?, all this is more your concern than mine.
Whatever Walkinxyz managed to make out of the hassle (much of his new content is currently precariously threatened by article subject having been restricted to "logic") - his neighbours have not been helping him at all.
Lisnabreeny ( talk) 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I consider the recent rewrite of my recent rewrite rather unfortunate. Those interested in the field, please see my remarks: Talk:Philosophy of perception#Lede rewrite (April 2011). Morton Shumway— talk 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
It has been proposed that Argument form be merged into Logical Form. Unfortunately neither article does the subject justice— Philogos ( talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
A debate about Ralph Waldo Emerson's title has been simmering for a few days ( see here). Additional comments are very much appreciated. Thanks. - Artoasis ( talk) 03:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody with better mental faculties than me help me out regarding criticisms of AT. The theory is under represented by those to whom it applies and, in my estimation, the (writers) criticisms are detracting from it's purpose and the esoteric knowledge it represents. -- Filmmaker2011 ( talk) 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Name_of_the_philosopher. Please look for it there. Skomorokh 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Church is the reincarnation of Frege". Does anyone know who first said that? Was it Carnap, Straus, Einstein, Godel, or Riechenbach? PPdd ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Much ado about [[nothing on the talk pages there now; Discussion of visual representaions of nothingness; The elements of the empty set and the elements of a mathematics made from nothing; WikiProject Death member comments on theology
PPdd ( talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
A banned sockpuppeteer has been editing articles on Terence_McKenna, Omega point and Teilhard de Chardin since before Christmas. I haven't reverted any of it as for all I know their edits here might be okay but in Physics they are just weird and wrong. They are:
And they've used at least the following ips based in St Petersburg:
Cheers Dmcq ( talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The editor Lorem has deleted a large part of the article Metaphysics without first seeking the views of other editors. See the talk page. Vandalism? — Philogos (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Philogos ( talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have sought editors' views at talk:metaphysics#Recent deletion as to whether the deletion should be reverted. It would be appreciated if you would epres your view there— Philogos ( talk) 01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The deletion was reverted. The article however lack citations— Philogos ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Virtually no discussion of the book at all, just a CliffsNotes sort of article. Dougweller ( talk) 16:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, nothing about its importance. I think it is true to say that modern science (and thereby industrial civilization) is based on ideas first put forward in this book. Quite possibly the most important book of all time. If anybody wants a copy, there was one for sale on ebay recently; only 60,000 Pounds Sterling.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Doug!-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a question on how to organize Category:Literary critics over at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Literature#Question re: Category:Literary critics. Please chime in. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a not-quite-edit-war brewing at Four-dimensionalism. Could an as-yet uninvolved editor or two take a look at the talk page discussion and article history and weigh in. The primary problem (as I saw) was a lede that was overly detailed and essaylike and one editor (Stho002) refusing to work collaboratively. In the interest of disclosure, and to stave off any appearance of forum shopping, I'd already filed a WQA but I think it's to the level of content discussion now and within the scope of this project. Thanks BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 19:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Stho002 ( talk) 03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did go there only based on this request, and have no previous involvement. I do sympathize with many of your points: I too despise the typical "quote and cite" philosophy article. Take something as important as the problem of evil. That's the worst kind of "not an essay" article; in fact, it manages to evade the contemporary debate altogether and instead reports on every irrelevant and long-abandoned objection ever made. Some of our style guidelines, such as WP:YOU, are unnecessarily restrictive and disallow the kind of writing that makes difficult philosophy accessible. Take the following from SEP on temporal parts:
You're performing an amazing trick right now: you're in two places at once. How do you manage to be down there, near the floor, and yet also be a metre or two up in the air? Well, it's not so very amazing: your feet are down there on the floor, and your head is up in the air. Having spatial parts enables you to be in several different places, and to have different properties in different places: you're cold down there on the tiled floor, and also warm up there by the heater, because your feet are cold and your head is warm... [P]eople take up time as well as taking up space: you existed yesterday, and, unless reading this article is a real strain, you will exist tomorrow too. Just as you can have different properties at different places (hot up here, cold down there), you can have different properties at different times (yesterday you hadn't heard of temporal parts, by tomorrow you'll know plenty about them).
I really don't see why such writing should be considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But here is the deal: either we challenge these style guidelines globally, which you can do on the talk page of each policy or style guide, or we stick with them. An encyclopedia needs to be at least somewhat consistent from article to article! When it comes to style, though, I'd rather agree with what you say, "we should be more guided by whether the article explains things well, and less by robotic adherence to strict policy". And unless you want to have this highly specialized article featured on the Wikipedia front page, there is no need to enforce every single style guideline fanatically.
However, Wikipedia is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous. If a SEP article contains a non-trivial proposition without attributing it to anyone, you know it is the interpretation of the author of the article. You cannot do that on Wikipedia! Here everything unattributed must be neutral, obvious and uncontroversial. You need to take interpretations directly from the secondary literature, present it without adding any further significant interpretation, and properly attribute it to the person who made that interpretation. This is a point where compromise is not possible. You cannot ignore Philogos's citation requests. They wouldn't add such requests if it were obvious to them. While it is easier to complain from the sidelines, the burden is on the person who wants to add material to comply with content policies. Most importantly, when you find these requests unreasonable, you explain why it is unreasonable and you may ask here for second opinions, but you do not call that editor "part of the problem" unless your goal is to be kicked off Wikipedia as quickly as possible. Vesal ( talk) 10:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit history looks too frantic, too frequent critical 'feedback' or 'instruction' and 'protection' of the article, and then resulting energy wasting discussion. Unless there is something urgently bad added to a "start class" or similar article, experienced wp editors should not intervein immediately, daily or hourly, as someone invests their time effort and experience to improve it. Let them a respectful amount of space to get somewhere, as much as you wish your experienced or considered input to be ultimately respected. In good time take the article forward yourself if possible, eg. checking if there are cites and adding them yourself before demanding them. This is often easier to do than requesting it done and explaining at length why it is crucial. The comment about getting "kicked off Wikipedia" for complaint is a bit harsh. I have been maligned by an editor here, eg called "a pathetic persistent liar" etc, and a previous administrative incident review about the conflict ended without a single admin comment - it was simply archived. I have also been slightly rude to Philogo about a mistake where he wiped another editor's discussed contribution to an article in a single edit marked minor. I considered apologising for tone, but not with no admission of the error, and in this area of WP at least there seems to be a vacuum of actual moderation. Certainly civil standards are much much preferable, but frustration at unchecked problem behaviour can quite fairly produce outbursts. It is something to watch out for here, for your own tranquility rather than supposed WP process. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
— Philogos ( talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a starting point only, and I had nothing to do with the last two of those references above, so they may actually go, and be replaced by better ones ... it due course. I must protest that Philogos has gone and rewritten the lede yet again, adding nothing of substance, after Vesal and I had both settled on an acceptable lede ... Stho002 ( talk) 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The revised lede was reverted three times by user:130.216.201.45 — Philogos ( talk) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
BrideOfKripkenstein.: At your suggestion I took a look at this article, shortened the lede, made a few suggestions and proposed a new lede. It appears to me, however, that it is difficult for editors to assist with this article without being subject to personal abuse and for their edits to be summarily reverted. The lede states In philosophy, four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism. It quotes Sider (Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231. http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf) as using the term to mean perdurantism. (Sider's actual words are
Persistence through time is like extension through space. A road has spatial parts in the subregions of the region of space it occupies; likewise, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. This view — known variously as four dimensionalism, the doctrine of temporal parts, and the theory that objects “perdure” — is opposed to “three dimensionalism”, the doctrine that things “endure”, or are “wholly present”.
— Sider, Four Dimensionalism, Philosophical Review 106
No text is cited to verify the use of the term to mean eternalism. If the term four-dimensionalism refers to either eternalism or perdurantism, and we have articles on both: eternalism and perdurantism, and, for good measure, temporal parts then this article appears to be redundant, a point already raised on the discussion page. — Philogos ( talk) 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The term four-dimensionalism is often used without specification of exactly what is meant. Often, it is used in the context of the issue of personal identity over time. For example, Robinson (1985: 299-300) stated that 'the m[ultiple].o[ccupancy]. view, as canvassed below, is not my first choice amongst approaches to fission cases. I prefer the four-dimensionalist account (itself an m.o. analysis) presented with exemplary clarity by David Lewis in 'Survival and Identity' '. Unfortunately, Lewis (1976), at least in the first edition of this book, does not appear to use the term four-dimensionalism at all! Muis (2005) offers an explanation of the terminology which (fairly) clearly equates four-dimensionalism with perdurantism (by using the term 'four-dimensional' in relation to perdurantism only), not eternalism, but does so in an opening paragraph that mentions all four -isms (i.e., eternalism vs. presentism, endurantism vs. perdurantism), stating that 'in analytical metaphysics, there are three, closely related, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' [my bold], the third debate being A-theory vs. B-theory of time (see below). Therefore, it appears to be very difficult to disentangle the issues or work out any firm terminological distinctions. It is unclear if all the literature exactly follows the terminology of Muis (2005).
>However, Wikipedia is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous< I disagree! Articles here are not anonymous! The edit history is preserved and accessible. It shows who did what. Edits can be "somewhat anonymous", if the edit is by an IP or an account that doesn't reveal their "true identity" on their user page, but can be "no way anonymous" if "true identity" is revealed (something I must get around to doing on my user page here). There is actually no significant difference with "those other encyclopedias" in that regard. If anything, WP is less anonymous, as you can't tell exactly who wrote what sentence in a typical encyclopedia... Stho002 ( talk) 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
>You need to take interpretations directly from the secondary literature, present it without adding any further significant interpretation, and properly attribute it to the person who made that interpretation. This is a point where compromise is not possible< Again, I disagree! The rule is self-defeating. In philosophy, when someone (P) publishes an interpretation of Q, P's interpretation typically stands just as much in need of interpretation as Q! You can't break out of the circle and say here is P's interpretation, unless you either (1) just quote P directly, or (2) interpret P. If we go for (1), then WP becomes just "Wikiquotes", and the quote will typically be so difficult to interpret that it is useless (see clarification below). Hence, (2) is the only real option. Stho002 ( talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: the only way to interpret P is in context of everything that one knows about the topic, but you can't cite everything that you know about the topic! Hence, an interpretation in philosophy is uncitable (except perhaps in a PhD thesis with a huge bibliography). The reader of a WP article on philosophy just needs to be aware that what they are reading has, of necessity, a rather significant component of interpretation, which, as I pointed out, is not the same as opinion, bias, etc. Stho002 ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
>A simple example of original synthesis:
>The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
>Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to...
But, you can imply the same conclusion, without combining anything, purely by sequencing, thus:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since the creation of the UN there have been 160 wars throughout the world. ... Stho002 ( talk) 03:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I offered a suggestion, and was told that the current parties to the dispute like their own versions better, so maybe more eyes are not needed after all. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Stho002 ( talk) has just reverted the lede again (and, for good measure removed the 'expert needed' flag). — Philogos ( talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Philogos ( talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The additional refs are the works cited by Sider in the lede which Stho002 has reverted yet again. The addition of <nowicki> citation needed</nowiki> does not seem to me to be adding too much detail for a lede, and making it obscure again— Philogos ( talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)