Talk:David Kaplan (philosopher)
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
this is all jargon.
- I can understand why it would seem that way, but the fact is that Kaplan is a very technical philosopher who (along with most other philosophers of language) makes heavy use of a lot of technical terminology, in addition to lots of formal logic. I didn't include much of the formal logic, as many of the more philosophical ideas can be explained without it (as Kaplan himself does in Demonstratives and Dthat). But the point is that the jargon here was created for very specific purposes which aren't easily served by ordinary language. This is part of why most people would place Kaplan into the ideal language tradition. Danielwharris 08:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is another article where, instead of an actual citation, words that look like they're an actual citation are used. Frege did write something "On Sense and Reference," but his book is not identical to Sense and Reference, the Wikis that are used as a "citation." The reader would think that by clicking on the links they'd get the citation (many probably think that's what they are getting). Instead, they get no link to On Sense and Reference, but to Wikis. The real citation needs to be there. This would be similar to saying something is about "War and Peace" by writing War and Peace and pretending that's a citation to Tolstoy. Actual citations, with at least a date and a publisher's name, please.--Levalley (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This one of the better philosophy bios.
It has a few problems with citations, could be expanded, is very readable, contains no puffery or unsupported statements. In short, it's unusual and very good. Good inspiration for the others I'm working on. Also, it doesn't take a Ph.D. in philosophy of mind or logic to read it.--Levalley (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Just in case"
On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error: