Talk:Sense data

Philosophy: Epistemology / Science Mid‑importance

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

Criticisms section[edit]

Is the characterization "ridiculous" appropriate for an encyclopedia? It seems very subjective.

Indeed. I've edited it out. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language --Hypostate (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

The article mentions that sight is sense-data but does not make reference to things like smell, touch, hearing, etc. Do these apply as well?

I'm not an expert but i believe that they probably apply because it is to do with perception not just sight, but it is just that most theories concentrate on sight because that's just how it's always done.

plagiarism[edit]

this article reproduces very large section of the article from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is copyrighted. Hence, it is a clear case of copyright infringement. The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.177.243.61 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting the problem. The copyvio was added on 3 November 2009. The copyvio has been deleted and clean content restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sense-data/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence[edit]

What does this mean?: "One of the greatest troubling aspects to 20th century theories of sense data is its unclear rubric nature."

Also, is there a way to support this claim? As it stands, it sounds like one person's opinion.

(n the meantime, I'm going to clean up its grammar.) dweinberger 13:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)