Talk:Open-question argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 


Cleanup[edit]

While I think my changes (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was before, I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?). --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 'closed question' example: Perhaps, I have misunderstood your point, but it is possible for someone who does not eat meat to NOT be a vegetarian. They could be a fruititarian, for example (I believe this is the correct term), or a vegan. Although the point of your example, if left unchanged, will probably be retained by the average reader, it would probably be best to insert an example without a counterexample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.154.106 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Why does open question argument divert to naturalistic fallacy but open question diverts to this page and the title reads 'Open Question Argument'? Naturalistic fallacy appears to be better sourced and talks about the same thing. -Bottlecapninja 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last paragraph it reads "Others hold..." who are 'others'?MrMelonhead (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Masked Man ... The matter is an empirical one, which the citizen must investigate a priori." ?should 'a posteriori' DavidWongShee (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Internalism, Externalism, and the Humean Theory of Motivation[edit]

I think the article makes a mistake by identifying externalism with the Humean Theory of Motivation. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-motivation/ for definitions and distinctions. --86.26.20.225 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense and Reference[edit]

Seems biased, unclear and poorly sourced (one personal blog).

1Z (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)