|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Internalism, Externalism, and the Humean Theory of Motivation
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. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Sense and Reference
Seems biased, unclear and poorly sourced (one personal blog).