Talk:Parallelism (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion[edit]

I want to delete this article but I don't know how. The new part is original content, which I now know is not allowed. I just wanted to show a link between compatibilism and pre-established harmony and I have done that instead under interaction dualism.

You can't delete it yourself. You have to nominate it on WP:AFD. Why do you want to delete the whole article though? The first section, though small, seems fine. -Seth Mahoney 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I second Seth - this is a notable theory, and an article on it seems appropriate. Anarchia 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I second Anarchia, Parallelism is at the least a significant view in the history of philosophy. Furthermore, the article does not belong in the pseudoscience category, because it is an assumption or a priori premise and not given a posteriori. To my knowledge it does not comply with Karl Popper's definition of pseudoscience, which requires that the presentation of the subject makes claim to science. I have yet to come across a (pseduo)scientific justification of parallelism. Some arguments for parallelism may explain away scientifically established facts, however, this is not the same as making the claim: "this is science". Rather, pro-parallelism arguments argue the opposite, which is a strong demarcation from science - and thus pseudoscience. Ostracon (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)