Talk:Naïve realism

"Stupid Representationalism"

Would that be allowed as a title for an article on representational realism? What about "Childlike Idealism"? "Naive" realism is an outdated smack against a longstanding and, today, dominant position in philosophy. It's called direct realism. Here is the proof, from philpapers.org, that 85%(!) of professional epistemologists "accept or lean toward non-skeptical realism." http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=11&areas_max=1&grain=coarse There is overlapping consensus on this issue, yet the Wikipedia article characterizes this position as "naive" and an "error." Please, wikipedistes, fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.78.165 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called direct realism. There is already an article entitled direct realism, and already a merger proposal, as noted both on this talk page and in the article itself. If you would like to comment on this merger (I personally lean towards it, but it looks like you know a bit more about philosophy than me), please do. Hadrian89 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Like the majority of the naïve population, 128.197.78.165 is clearly naive on this issue. He is completely misinterpreting the results of this philosophy papers survey and concluding the opposite of what the real data says. The much better question on this issue is the one: “Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?” where only 15 percent of the respondents are disjunctivists. The survey is a terrible survey, so you can make many claims about what the respondents really meant on this issue, but it can be argued that most of the other camps are representational camps. And most of these respondents in the other camps, indeed, would also “accept or lean toward non-skeptical realism”.

We are using a more modern and capable survey system at canonizer.com to better measure for scientific consensus with the Consciousness Survey Project. So far, the early results, with people like Lehar, Smythies, Hameroff, Chalmers… already contributing indicate that 128.197.78.165 could also be very wrong about representationalism being ‘outdated’. My hypothesis is that we are in the middle of a very significant scientific revolution taking place in this field, where the experts are truly abandoning now clearly falsified theories, including naive realism, and coalescing around what the supporting experts recently unanimously decided to call Representational Qualia Theory.

Of course, this survey is only as comprehensive as the number of people that participate, so regardless of what you think is currently the best working theory, everyone could greatly benefit from your ‘canonizeing’ if you will, (non anonymously, of course) your view with the rest of the people, both expert and not.

After attending conferences in this field, interviewing and surveying as many experts as I can in this field for several years now as part of this consciousness survey project, it is my opinion that, the ‘naive realism’ camp should not be done away with, and if anything the “direct realism” article should be merged into the naive realism article. “Neutral point of view” should not give as much credit to the naïve population, as it does to the expert scientific consensus. Brent.Allsop (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with direct realism article?

The merger was suggested by Srnec on 13th November 2008, in six months I have been the only one to comment on it here and there has been no discussion of it on the direct realism talk page. It is clearly not a hot topic however it is also clear that some kind of merger is required because naive realism and direct realism are synonyms.

There is some overlap between the issues discussed in each article however the naive realism article is far more in-depth. For example, the Philosophy WikiProject has rated the direct realism article as Start-Class and the naive realism article as B-Class.

I would suggest that the sections from the direct realism article that are not already covered by the naive realism article should be integrated into this article and the direct realism article be redirected here. The reason for this is because the term naive realism is more commonly used than the term direct realism, especially in contemporary debates such as quantum mechanics. As a test of this here are some google results "naive realism" (57,400 results), "direct realism" (21,800 results), "naive realism" quantum (4,720 results), "direct realism" (1,750 results).

What do other's think? Anandavala (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles should be merged, and it seems that naive realism is the more common term, so direct realism should indeed redirect here. However, I believe that for the moment the content of the direct realism article should replace the content of the naive realism article, for the reasons discussed in the section below. I also think that the Philosophy WikiProject would not have rated this article 'B' if they realised that the bulk of the material was quotations. Hadrian89 (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the whole idea of merging "Naive Realism" with "Direct Realism" is wrongheaded. I take "naive realism" to mean something like "Any relatively unsophisticated epistemological view according to which items that seem to be external to ostensible perceivers really are external to such ostensible perceivers and generally have many of the properties they seem to have--although they have many more as well." Such a position is consistent not only with direct realism (which, incidentally, may be quite sophisticated), but also with a number of varieties of indirect realism. That is, although I don't want to deny that there is considerable overlap, direct realism need not be naive and naive realism need not be direct. Anyhow, very poor idea.

The quotations were clearly marked when the B rating was given. Anandavala (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about the merger given the contributions on Talk:Direct Realism; based on the sources shown there, it seems that naive realism is either a subset of direct realism or a different position that shares a few basic characteristics, but not a synonym; if the former, they should be merged, if the latter, then the two should remain separate articles. Expert attention is perhaps needed.

I'm going to turn this article into a stub of new material for the moment, though all are obviously welcome (and encouraged) to rework the sources available to make a more substantial article. Hadrian89 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The arguments so far presented against the current format are not sufficient (unorthodox does not equal inappropriate) hence we should wait for further comment from the requested re-assessment by WikiProject Philosophy. The article is certainly not a stub and if reworking does occur it should not diminish the informative content. Anandavala (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was a stub, I was saying that I was going to turn it into a stub (which I didn't due to IRL business). I think unorthodox is a kind word for it - it is against the spirit of Wikipedia insofar as 90% of the article is not free content. However, it is still perhaps preferable to having no content. Unless we hear from WikiProject Philosophy very shortly, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask you to format the article according to WP:MOSQUOTE, seeing as you are the one that is keen to keep the content. Hadrian89 (signed out) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

This article copies wholesale from a number of copyrighted works. Although the original source is cited as a reference, these copied materials are not indicated as direct quotations, nor are they discussed in any sort of critical or value-added way that would make their use fair. I believe that much of this article is therefore a copyright violation and should be removed or rewritten. Thelatinist (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Thelatinist's assertions:

re: "This article copies wholesale from a number of copyrighted works."

That is not true. It consists of quotes from many sources, a few of which are copyrighted and in each case it does not copy wholesale but only quotes a very minor percentage of the work.

At least ten of the 16 are copyrighted, incidentally. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re: "Although the original source is cited as a reference, these copied materials are not indicated as direct quotations"

When first written it was clear that they were quotes, however for visual appeal other editors have removed the quote blocks. I have suggested on this talk page that they be reinstated for correctness however there has been no response. Due to Thelatinists objection I will reinstate quote marks to make it clear that they are quotes.

In future, don't feel the need to gain consensus about attribution, just do it. It's an official policy anyway. I don't know which editor removed the quotations, but he was wrong to do so. House style, by the way, is that attribution is given in the body of the article, not the footnotes. This (I believe) is because many webscrapers do not scrape the footnotes, so attribution by footnotes is lost on any mirror sites. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re: "nor are they discussed in any sort of critical or value-added way that would make their use fair."

The quotes are arranged in a manner that uses many quotes from many sources to produce a single coherent discussion on the issue of naive realism, hence there is considerable value adding arising from their combination. Besides this the issue of fair use applies to single copyrighted sources and the proportion of that source that is used. In every instance this article fits well within the bounds of fair use.

re: "I believe that much of this article is therefore a copyright violation and should be removed or rewritten."

If anyone can show that any portion of the article is a copyright violation then that portion should be rewritten, but at present there is no reason to believe that there are any such portions.

Furthermore, due to Thelatinist's assertions Hadrian89 later redirected the entire article to the Direct Realism article, which provides a much less in-depth discussion of the issue. If the two are to be merged then the content of both articles should be merged and not just replace the more in-depth article with the less in-depth one.

I will therefore revert the redirect to reinstate the article as it was and then edit it to make it clear that the quotes are in fact quotes.Anandavala (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On a purely legal level, you may well be right - because such a variety of sources has been used, no one of them is used unfairly (although the length of some quotations is still stretching the boundaries for what is the norm in Wikipedia). That, however, is not the point. Wikipedia is meant to provide encyclopedia articles consisting of new, collaboratively produced material compatible with the GFDL licence. It is not meant to provide a repository of quotations taken from copyrighted sources, even if they do cohere to some extent. The tone of many of extracts is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia. On no other page in Wikipedia will you see this approach being taken. It is for these reasons that the 'article' needs to be completely rewritten. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to explain my actions, at the time that I redirected the page, the quotations did constitute a copyright violation because there was nothing to suggest that they were direct quotations. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request for re-assessment of the article to WikiProject Philosophy and also asked them to comment on these criticisms. Anandavala (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dualism or Monism?

I just noticed that there is a sentence at the end of a quote that I introduced on the 26th of May 2008, which presents a biased point of view and should be balanced or removed. The sentence is...

"Ultimately, therefore, the most convincing argument for epistemological dualism is the fact that its monistic alternatives have all been refuted on sound logical grounds, which leaves epistemological dualism as the only viable alternative." (at the end of the section "Problems with reprensentative realism")

This implies that monism has been soundly refuted - end of story. This is not true; there is still a heated debate with no clear outcome. Candidates such as neutral monism, Russellian monism, type-F monism have not been "refuted on sound logical grounds" and epistemological dualism does not stand out as the only logical conclusion. The issue is still very much an open question.

Either the sentence should be removed because it goes beyond the scope of the article or there should be a brief discussion within the article, comparing dualist and monist theories of epistemology in relation to naive realism.

What do others think? Anandavala (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence has been removed because it is biased and not directly relevant to the subject. If people think the issue of dualist and monist theories of epistemology in relation to naive realism is important to the article a more balanced discussion should be included. (note: I forgot to login before deleting the sentence)Anandavala (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam

Putnam defends an original kind of naive realism, after giving up his formerly metaphysical and internal realism. It would be worth doing to add something about. --Gazal Cotre (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pure philosophy

There should probably be only one link to the external page explaining naive realism once. It might be better still to get a second, more thorough external link or reference.

The introductory page is fine for those not familiar with naive realism or philosophy in general. A more thorough explanation would consider how such non-naive philosophers as Wittgenstein, Hume and Kant still believe that there is an external world with all the appropriate laws of physics, and objects which have--in some sense--all the properties which we perceive them to have. In fact, all realists believe this in one way or another. It's the way in which they interpret these claims which determines whether they are naive or other. The article should then also explain the difference between realism and idealism.

I don't think, however, that the issues of scientific realism should be removed. Instead, issues of pure philosophical argument should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdanneskjold (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Naïve realist error??

What is this "naïve realist error" mentioned in the last paragraph of the intro? If the article claims naïve realism is an error in itself, it must be verified by some logical or better, fuzzy-logical (probabilistic) reasoning. If there is a specific naïve realist error, this topic should need at least an own section. That paragraph also claims boldly that:

However, modern philosophy is just as rife with naïve realists as are modern psychology and neuroscience.

Are then "naïve realists" kind of a "trollish scum" that should be "smited like sheep with flaming swords of Truth (capital letter)", or is there a certain kind of error often repeated in psychology and neuroscience? Or is the para just someones unfounded opinion? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect the article is in some kind of grave error. I can think of the following alternatives:

1. the article is started as some personal opinion, and is not corrected because few readers understand the topic,
2. (IMHO more likely) the article is about a constructed philosophy never proponed by any real human, and the philosophy is constructed to illustrate some primitivist kind of model that is debunked to put forward another model; the intro of this article does however not present this constructed philosophy correctly, since it naïvely seems like a correct working model in psychology and neurology sciences where two-valued-kinds of philosophy is practically irrelevant for the progress and methodology of most research topics; the article shouldn't propone that certain kind of researchers are bad philosophers, like it does, instead, it should try to source the philosophers who allege that psychology and neuroscience uses a working model in a philosophically unenlightened way, and preferrably then pinpoint the specific types of errors the scientists may avoid by criticising their own models philosophically. But researchers tend to take care of philosophical problems when they pose impractical, not when outsiders say so. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Close inspection of the last paragraph of the introduction section reveals that it is a direct copy-paste from its cited source. Compare:

"Of all the branches of human knowledge, philosophy might be expected to be the best inoculated against the naïve realist error, since the issue of the epistemology of conscious experience is a central focus of philosophy. However, modern philosophy is just as rife with naïve realists as are modern psychology and neuroscience. As in psychology there is a recurring pattern of the occasional visionary who points out the fallacy of the naïve view, interspersed with long periods of enthusiastic support for the latest naïve inspired view, although again the issue is generally not addressed directly but only peripherally, as it is hidden in the details of various theories."

Opening paragraph of the source:

"Of all the branches of human knowledge, philosophy might be expected to be the best inoculated against the naive realist error, since the issue of the epistemology of conscious experience is a central focus of philosophy. However modern philosophy is just as rife with naive realists as are modern psychology and neuroscience. As in psychology there is a recurring pattern of the occasional visionary who points out the fallacy of the naive view, interspersed with long periods of enthusiastic support for the latest naive inspired view, although again the issue is generally not addressed directly but only peripherally, as it is hidden in the details of various theories."

I do not know what Wikipedia's guidelines are for copy-pasta, but since it a) contains weasel words (inoculated, error, rife) b) does not maintain a neutral POV c) is a direct copy of its source d) contains multiple outstanding uncited claims this paragraph should therefore be removed. 99.48.2.208 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The first comment from Rursus:

Re: "What is this "naïve realist error" mentioned in the last paragraph of the intro?"

Given that naive realism is proven to be a false philosophical position then any application of naive realism is a "naive realist error". In many fields this is not problematic but in many sub-disciplines of the fields of philosophy, psychology and neuroscience (also quantum physics) it is a error that can pose a serious impediment to understanding.

Re: "If the article claims naïve realism is an error in itself, it must be verified by some logical or better, fuzzy-logical (probabilistic) reasoning."

The article gives various arguments for and against. However the philosophical consensus and scientific evidence shows that it is an error. Hence the article as a whole does claim that naïve realism is an error in itself.

The most compelling arguments come from quantum physics. However the abstract nature of those arguments means that it is not practical to include them in the body of the article, hence the reader must follow the citations to read those arguments in detail.

Re: "Are then 'naïve realists' kind of a 'trollish scum' that should be 'smited like sheep with flaming swords of Truth (capital letter)', or is there a certain kind of error often repeated in psychology and neuroscience?"

To state that a philosophical position is not accurate does not need to be construed as a personal attack upon proponents of that position. Neither does it need to be construed as an evangelical crusade. It is clear from the quotation and the cited article that neither of these were intended. The "certain kind of error often repeated in psychology and neuroscience" is the application of naive realism. Specific examples of this error are given in the source article.

Re: The second comment from Rursus:

Re: Point 1 "the article is started as some personal opinion, and is not corrected because few readers understand the topic"

To avoid this exact criticism the article consists entirely of cited quotes from verifiable academic sources, which were selected to present a broad range of opinions. The article was submitted for assessment by the Philosophy WikiProject when its content was changed to that which we see now. Upon assessment the quality and importance rating was increased.

Furthermore, there are many who clearly understand the subject of naive realism and nobody has objected to this quotation previously. Indeed it seems to be a clear and realistic appraisal of the problematic nature of naive realism throughout many sciences. If you do have a valid objection then you should explain, from your understanding of naive realism and the fields of philosophy, psychology and neuroscience, why the quotation is grossly misleading or inaccurate.

Re: Point 2 "it should try to source the philosophers who allege that psychology and neuroscience uses a working model in a philosophically unenlightened way, and preferrably then pinpoint the specific types of errors the scientists may avoid by criticising their own models philosophically"

This is exactly what it does and the source article gives many arguments and citations in defence of the statement made in the quotation. It would not be practical to give these arguments in the Wikipedia article but they are directly accessible via the citation.

The author of the statement is Steven Lehar, who is a:

PhD Graduate (1994) Cognitive and Neural Systems

Research Fellow in Ophthalmology, Harvard University

Post-doc at Schepens Eye Research Institute

former Professor of Cognitive Psychology at Salem State College

The arguments presented in the cited source indicate that he has a well reasoned and well referenced understanding of naive realism and its relation to psychology and neuroscience. He is therefore presenting an informed opinion on the subject.

Re: The comment from 99.48.2.208:

Re: "I do not know what Wikipedia's guidelines are for copy-pasta"

It is standard practice to quote from sources and to cite them. The minimal change policy says that wherever possible the quotation should not be altered. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations

Because it is a quotation it should be enclosed in quote marks or better still presented as a block quote. In the original version it was presented as a block quote however on the 27 May 2008 the block quotes were removed by an editor. I suggest that they be reinstated in conformity with the guidelines for quotations.

Re: "a) contains weasel words (inoculated, error, rife)"

These are not weasel words.

"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

If the statement claimed that "It has been said..." without saying who said it then that would be using weasel words. However in the quotation the opinions are clearly attributed to a verifiable source.

Re: "b) does not maintain a neutral POV"

The Wikipedia Neutral POV principle states that: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This doesn't mean that any statement that expresses a point of view must be deleted. What it means is that, on the level of the whole article, all points of view should be presented fairly. This article as a whole meets those guidelines by giving arguments both for and against. The fact that the philosophical consensus and scientific evidence falls in favour of one of those points of view does not make the article biased.

Re: "c) is a direct copy of its source"

This is not a problem. However I suggest that the block quotes be reinstated.

Re: "d) contains multiple outstanding uncited claims"

In the source article the claims are rigorously cited and explained. It is not practical to quote the whole source article but for anyone who wishes to know more the source article is clearly cited.

Conclusion:

None of the arguments presented in favour of its deletion are valid hence there is no case for deletion.

The quotation contains information that adds to the article as a whole (i.e. the problematic nature of naive realism within many sciences).

Hence the quotation should be reinstated. (Anandavala (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Anandavala, I am surprised that you suggest reinstating the quotation marks but then do not do it, given how simple a task it would be. I also think you may not fully understand the referencing system of Wikipedia, since it is in fact not just a good idea but a requirement that a direct quotation be in quotation marks - otherwise it is plagiarism, since an inline citation such as is currently in place does not credit the author of the text as the author, but merely suggests that the content of the paragraph can be checked for reliability against the source in question.

It is almost certainly the case that Rursus took issue with the paragraph because he, understandably, did not realise that it was a quotation - given this initial misunderstanding, some of his (and IP's) concerns about the non-encyclopedic nature of the paragraph hold water - if not weasel words, there is certainly POV contained within it.

I am reinstating quotation marks immediately. Hadrian89 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

facepalm.jpg

This article is the biggest coyright vio I've seen - the bulk of the article, not just the section debated above, is just copypasted from other sources, as Thelatinist pointed out above (as his post was top of the page, I thought it was old and didn't read through to the datestamp...). I don't know who thought this was how Wikipedia works, but it's got to go. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Heaps of copy/paste and direct quotes

This article violates several wikipedia policies. WP:QUOTE and [[WP::COPYPASTE]]. The information within the quotes needs to be written in a way that attributes the source and states the facts without actually duplicating the sources themselves. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cannot be both a close paraphrase of a copyrighted source, and unencyclopedic

There were two criticisms:

That it is a close paraphrase of a copyrighted source, and that it is unencyclopedic.

But since the copyrighted source is academic and authoritative, these two criticisms cannot both be true.

00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality assessment

I've changed the quality class of this article from B to C. I do not think that the article is broad enough to merit B class yet. The article needs more information on the development of the theory - there is very little about any scholars who have made contributions to this area. Moreover, reactions to the theory (support and critiques) are lacking and there is not sufficient coverage of alternative theories. I also think that the extensive lists of external links/further reading could be better woven into the source as inline citations. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)