Talk:David Kaplan (philosopher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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[edit]

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)

Improper citations[edit]

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.[edit]

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"[edit]

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: