Talk:Reason: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Reason/Archive 3) (bot |
AmesJussellR (talk | contribs) →V: new section |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[User:Callmepgr|Callmepgr]] ([[User talk:Callmepgr|talk]]) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
[[User:Callmepgr|Callmepgr]] ([[User talk:Callmepgr|talk]]) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
== V == |
|||
A number of the subsections of this article have titles where reason versus something - emotion, truth, religion, and etc. I wonder if these are as accurate titles as can be found. When the titles are something like, "Reason's relation to truth," then the relationship is not confined to opposition. [[User:AmesJussellR|AmesJussellR]] ([[User talk:AmesJussellR|talk]]) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:54, 29 September 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reason article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Ethics B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Reasoning page were merged into Reason. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Analogical reasoning is incorrectly reasoning" is incorrectly reasoning
The subsection on analogical reasoning is one of the most ridiculous I have ever read on an article in Wikipedia, at least a reasonably evolved article like this one.
It seems that we are caught inside an incredibly tight perspective that sees only a tiny fallacy where a huge section of human thought should be contemplated. We have only to turn to the linked main article Analogical reasoning to see how preposterous this subsection here is...
I am not a philosopher, I fear my edits would be below the desired quality. But if anyone would go ahead and fix that, it would be analogous to a doctor curing a leper, thus allowing the person to be seen for who she is instead of being thought of as something repulsive due to her disease. Analogy is more than fallacies of analogy.
Callmepgr (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
V
A number of the subsections of this article have titles where reason versus something - emotion, truth, religion, and etc. I wonder if these are as accurate titles as can be found. When the titles are something like, "Reason's relation to truth," then the relationship is not confined to opposition. AmesJussellR (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class epistemology articles
- High-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
- B-Class logic articles
- High-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- High-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles