Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Article | Category | Index | Outline | Portal | Project | Discussion Philosophy Noticeboard This is the central discussion area for WikiProject Philosophy. Feel free to discuss any topics relating to philosophy here. It is recommended that members watchlist this page.

Rfc on Falsifiability

Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead.

Notification

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

New proposal for WikiProject Effective altruism

Hey everyone, I've created a WikiProject proposal to support efforts to improve articles related to effective altruism, a social movement about doing good effectively and with strong roots in philosophy academia (especially Peter Singer). If you're interested, please write a comment supporting the WikiProject proposal here. Enervation (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Following strong support, the WikiProject has now been created and you can check it out here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Effective Altruism. —Enervation (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy Talk

This WikiProject looks inactive but I thought I'd alert you that I saw this article on the PROD list. I guess it's really pop culture but I thought there might be some interest in maintaining the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion to unprotect Guy Standing (economist)

Talk:Guy Standing (economist) § Extended confirm protection too much? ––FormalDude ^talk 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Science theory expert needed: Category:Scientific laws vs Category:Empirical laws

In my opinion, all subcategories of Category:Scientific laws are in fact about empirical laws, and should be moved to Category:Empirical laws — except for Category:Statistical laws, which should be split between Category:Mathematical theorems and Category:Empirical statistical laws (to be created around the article Empirical statistical laws).

After that, Category:Scientific laws could be deleted, since it can have at most two subcategories, viz. Category:Empirical laws (for what Kant called "a posteriori") and Category:Mathematical theorems (for what Kant called "a priori"). What are the opions about this suggestion?

We have a similar discussion at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Scientific laws, and want to apply the solution found here to Commons, too. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Empirical laws and scientific laws seem roughly synonymous to me (this is also backed up by the fact that empirical law currently redirects to scientific law) so I agree pages/subcategories in Category:Empirical laws should be moved to Category:Scientific laws or vice versa. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for this discussion to be handled via CfD here too though. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I started a CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_31#Category:Scientific_laws. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Stroma (philosophie)

Could I request an editor more familiar with philosophy take a look at this new article: Stroma (philosophie). It came across my list when reviewing new pages. I'm having trouble confirming the subject, and it is possible there may be a language issue. The creator the article also the subject to Stroma. Thanks in advance. Singularity42 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of music, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Deaths of philosophers

This meets WP:LISTN right? I've added a few refs and was thinking I'd made it a long-term project but I'm not totally convinced it's an appropriate list. The books listed in Deaths of philosophers#Further reading seem to indicate that the concept "deaths of philosophers" is itself notable, but it would seem odd if this list included totally normal deaths of people like G. E. Moore who are definitely philosophers but died in non-notable ways. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Philosophical Investigations

I've recommended serious surgery at Philosophical Investigations, possibly even consideration of WP:TNT. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Fallacy articles

I'm posting this here because some of the main fallacy articles are marked as mid or high importance for this project. I've also posted on the Skepticism Project page for the same reason. (The Logic Project talk page seems pretty inactive, as do the individual article talk pages.) I did a quick check of the archives but couldn't find a mention of this issue. I'm a newbie so if there's a better place for this do let me know.

I've been skim-reading a few of the fallacy articles recently (Formal fallacy, List of fallacies, and some specific fallacy articles linked there). I've by no means looked at all the individual pages, as there are a lot, but I'm getting the impression quite a few need significant work.

• Some articles are flagged as needing additional citations or being unclear or confusing (wholeheartedly agree!), and some seem like they should be (e.g. this one seems like more things should have references).
• Some of the flags are years old: this has a whole-article flag from 2016, the Formal fallacy page has a citation flag from 2010, and this one has a whole-article flag from 2007.
• Several seem to assume a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader, be rather densely written, or use specialist terms, mathematical equations etc. without explaining them (e.g. I couldn't properly decipher the "simple example" image in the Prosecutor's fallacy article). While some topics may be inherently hard to simplify, or inherently require some specialist knowledge, I do get the feeling that many of these articles could at least start out with simpler language and examples.
• Potential inconsistency, e.g. in List of fallacies - it's just a list so there's no requirement for examples or much elaboration, but some items do have examples while others don't. I personally would find a small example for each item a really useful thing to have in an overview because some of the descriptions aren't beginner-friendly, but either way might it be better if it were consistent? Or at least have them for the descriptions that aren't in plain English!

I could probably comment on more stuff but I'll leave it there. I know many of these articles may not be of specific interest to this project, but as fallacies on the whole seem to be I thought I'd leave a "cover-all" comment here. And just for context, I have a degree in maths (although it's been a while), so I'm familiar with certain types of fallacies and general maths notation. But also am not confident enough to make any edits myself. RapturousRatling (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@RapturousRatling: Generally you should choose one location to start a discussion, and then provide a link to the discussion at the other relevant locations (rather than copying the discussion at multiple venues). I've gone ahead and replaced your entry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism with a link to this discussion and a brief comment that it may interest members of that WikiProject. I put the same notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic.

These are all good criticisms, and certainly something for editors to work on. I'll take a look to see where I can help out. ––FormalDude talk 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Ok thanks for the info, that’s useful to know. I did actually consider just linking and then thought cross-linking to other projects might be bad form! (Like people might want to see everything relevant to a project all on their own project page.) In hindsight what you said makes more sense though :D RapturousRatling (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)