Talk:Reason

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Template:Vital article

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Ethics B‑class High‑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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Ethics

Archived discussion from Reasoning

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]