Talk:Radical empiricism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
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.
 
 

Wikipedia definitely needed a page on radical empiricism, so I made one and added the basic information people need to understand what it is about. However, I haven't had the time yet to think much about style and coherence, so be my guest to juggle the article around a bit.

The Toulmin-part is not usually included in a discussion of radical empiricism, but I see it not as original research but rather as an example of what radical empiricism is and isn't about (it isn't idealist).

Stdbrouw 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"flawed" vs. "incomplete"[edit]

The third sentence of the article currently reads:

In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.

I think it would make more sense if the word "flawed" were replaced with "incomplete", as in the following example:

In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is incomplete if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.

Italics were added for emphasis, although they're not present in the article itself.  — DemonicPartyHat talk 19:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)