Talk:Dilemma of determinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Dilemma of determinism is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"However, St. Thomas' works have not been fully assimilated"[edit]

"However, St. Thomas' works have not been fully assimilated": what on earth does this mean? (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Mike Chase

Snowded's reversion of sourced material with no fault in presentation of sources that I can see[edit]

Snowded's reversion of sourced material describing the dilemma claimed this material was my own opinion, suggesting that I indulged in WP:OR. That claim is baffling as the material does not depart from what the sources say. It would appear Snowded has been hasty here, and has not read the sources. Instead, he has assumed that his own opinion is more accurate than that of the citations. Brews ohare (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Brews edits[edit]

Brews - as far as I can see you are being selective in the sources you use and adding your own commentary. As before you have seized on a limited range of articles books and now you are using those perspectives to give a partial account of the subject. Further you are making it very difficult for any other editor to work with your draft changes by not using in-text citations. That means minor changes require you to spend a lot of time on the article which encourages a mass revert (as you have seen other editors). No attempt to get you to make even a token gesture to working with other editors gets an response and talk pages conversations go on for ever. The one thing you have convinced me of is that when (or if ) you apply for your topic ban on Physics to be lifted then that is an opportunity to get the community to look at your behaviour over multiple articles. For the moment I have other things to do as I am variously in Bogota and elsewhere with limited internet access or time. I will return to this article towards the end of the week when I am home and with access to my text books. At that point I may well revert again. I strongly suggest you reflect on making small changes that would allow others to work with you collaboratively. Some simple changes:

  1. Use in text citations until the text is stable, then move them to your preferred format.
  2. Separate non controversial editors (such as headings, minor reformatting etc) from major edits that you know may be opposed.
  3. Use the talk page to get general agreement to a change (that does not require exact words) before you edit the article

It's your call if you are prepared to listen or not----Snowded TALK 09:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, you have made some general suggestions, but without anything specific about the material itself. For example, you claim I have been "selective" in choosing sources, which suggests a violation of WP:NPOV. A useful substantiation would supplement my sources with some you are aware of with different views that could be added. You say I have added my own commentary, which could suggest a violation of WP:OR, but nothing has been pointed out that needs to be changed. You object to my use of a standard WP reference format, but that does not impede your ability to supply contrasting sources, nor to identify text I have used that you find tendentious.
in short, Snowded, you have not provided advice that would bring the article more into compliance with your opinions, and have not provided any indication of sourced views that you would like to include. Please be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, you might have noticed, the previous version of the Intro to which you reverted without comment, is not only unclear, but unsourced and full of "citation needed" templates. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not listening again I see Brews. Well it was to be expected. I'll get to the article at the end of the week for the moment assume your changes are disputed ----Snowded TALK 16:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not listening? I have responded directly. Please try to do the same with specific sources. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not responded to a single suggestion I made to move forwards. Never mind, I'll get to your latest changes later in the week, If I ADD material it will be sourced, if I revert your material it will be for reasons stated either then or already on this and other pages. ----Snowded TALK 20:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your reasons are unknown to me, but you could provide diffs if indeed there are some reasons somewhere. As for this talk page, there are none at all. And as pointed out, the Intro you wish to restore is unsourced and challenged by numerous "citation needed" templates, unlike the well-sourced version you dislike. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

As the template says, there is massive reliance on primary sources. I'm not too fussed about that (practically all reference works will have this), but I am fussed when the claims are obviously false, or speculative. E.g. the claim that Aquinas "understood the dilemma of determinism in full light". ??? Peter Damian (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK the Aquinas claim was added as part of a series of edits here by Piotrniz. Peter Damian (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This was indeed not a sourced claim, although one easy to understand and admit. He wrote the quote about "choosing not randomly but due to causes" in his () Summa against pagans, in the book on Providence and close to considering pagan views of "fate." A chance would be the blindest, least directed sort of fate, belief therein was a rare view even amongst the pagans (perhaps Epicur or Lucrecius, or Democritus could believe in such randomness, it also -- as I heard -- appeared in Aristotle's writings when he discussed "chance", see Indeterminism). So the fact that his admitting: "choices are bound to causes" was connected in the text with "and not random" suggests that there was understanding of this contrast. And the contrast is the core of the dilemma. Right? But I have not taken it from any book. The sole term "dilemma of determinism" is rather new, it was introduced in the 20th century. (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)