This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
One wonders how a person could obtain a doctorate degree in chemistry without ever having been a student of that subject (as the article currently makes you assume). The article says he graduated as a physician, and in that course of studies some knowledge of chemistry will be imparted, but how much ? A German language source says that he actually became a student of chemistry at a German university, before he was drafted to the (Austrian-Hungarian) army in WW I. If the date of 1913 for his graduating in medicine is correct, he cannot have persued that second course of studies for very long, though I do not know when precisely he had to start his war service.22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
From the Dictionary of National Biography: "During the First World War Polanyi served as a medical officer in the Austro-Hungarian army and then took his doctoral degree in chemistry at the University of Budapest. In 1919 he fled Budapest for Germany [...]. Polanyi [...] in 1920 moved to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Fibre Chemistry in Berlin." Stearnsbrian (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Intro paragraph (past tense) ends with a sentence at present tense ("He argues that not only does positivism give..."). Before changing this, I was wondering if his stake on positivism was really so central to his thought to deserve a place in the first paragraph. Otherwise it should simply be removed, or replaced with a better summary of his work. --Satanetto (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The lead should summarize the article, which covers much besides philosophy. I'll draft a summarizing lead now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes the attack on "Positivism" is central to his work. It is not simply that as a working scientist he thought it an inaccurate account of the practice of science, he claimed that Positivism (in its most general sense) is profoundly destructive of the beliefs which sustain human civilisation. His work in chemistry and economics are footnotes (which is not to belittle them) in the history of those sciences, but his writings against Positivism are why he has a Wikipedia article. When Polanyi is mentioned in contemporary writings it is generally not for his work in the sciences - distinguished though his contributions were in various fields. You can find another word such as "Scientism" or "Reductionism" or "Analytical Philosophy" but Positivism (in all of its various senses) is the most accurate general description of what he was rejecting. You will be hard pressed to find a single Polanyi scholar who would disagree with this assessment. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've emphasized that P. is central, but the function of a lead section is to summarize in about 4 paragraphs the whole of the subject's life and work, so I have reinstated the other paragraphs - they may not be perfect but they cover the other aspects of his career. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It is only a short article and so a lengthy summary is unnecessary. I have not deleted the summary, but I have tightened up some of it's claims. For example, Polanyi did not reject the concept of objectivity.
Explain twenty-odd edits involving hundreds of words
I've reverted a recent spree of edits involving many hundreds of words because they have no edit summary. I'm hoping for either a single proposal by the author of the last twenty-something edits, or at least some kind of explanation, any kind of positive gesture will help. — CpiralCpiral 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)