Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 5 July 2013

Philosophy: Metaphysics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Merger proposal

Per my suggestion at the Philosophy notice board. This subject does not appear in the Oxford Companion and the sourced material relates to a limited number of authors who appear to do no more than use the term. Given that we should depend on third party sources the notability of this as an article is questionable. Meta-ethics, Meta-logic and others are in the Oxford Companion so they are legitimate. Happy to withdraw the proposal if the subject does feature in equivalents to the Oxford Companion. ----Snowded 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator ----Snowded 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Reject: The area of metaontology has lots of activity and has sufficient notability to stand alone, despite Snowded's continued attempts to curtail additions to it. As the article mentions, the term was coined in the 50's by Inwagen, and the Carnap-Quine debate is a huge subject in itself. Meta-ontology is discussed by Hofweber in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is a topic discussed by several well known modern philosophers.Chalmers Thomasson Schaffer Rosenkrantz and has a long bibliography on PhilPapers A recent book has several essays on the topic. It even has sub-fields like deflationary metaontology. The subject of meta-ontology is viewed by some as a sub-field of ontology but, as Hofweber (who holds this opinion) says: ", strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed... Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. "

From the standpoint of WP, there is enough to say about meta-ontology and enough sources to consider, that it is better to break it out as an article in its own right rather than introduce a large sub-topic in Ontology and embroiling that article in Snowded's objections to its treatment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It doesn't seem important as a topic on its own. The lack of content supporting the term as a notable stand-alone term justifies merging it into the main ontology article. Ducknish (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the article has numerous sources, and Brews Ohare has given sources in his above message, I think you need to explain your remarks and address Brews Ohare's points. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose — The nominating editor's reason is based on his claim about the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is a list of very brief entries that the lone editor of that work has chosen. Doesn't seem like a good reason to merge. Also, I think the points in Brews Ohare's message need to be addressed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for Philosophy. I used that as an illustration of the problem about notability. Brew's references show that the word has some use, but it has not yet reached the point where the subject deserves mention in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The Stanford example uses the word in an entry called "logic and ontology", it does not have a section by that name. Hofweber's opinion is also controversial and even he says that broadly construed this is a topic within ontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for Philosophy." — It looks like there is only one editor who decides what goes into the work, not a large team from Oxford. Do you agree? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"An assembly of 249 distinguished philosophers have contributed to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy " . This type of book is extensively peer reviewed and they do provide authoritative sources as to what is notable. Yes the editor has the final say, but said editor has high status in the profession. ----Snowded 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "This type of book is extensively peer reviewed..." — I see no evidence that there is a peer-review system of referees operating for the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Perhaps you could share your evidence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? A major review of a field, published by one of the worlds leading academic publishers with a huge team of editors, edited by a senior and respected professor? Are you really challenging it as an authority on the field? ----Snowded 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you have no evidence for your claim that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is peer-reviewed by a system of referees. Sorry, but your opinion is not sufficient for me.

There seems to be enough reliable sources and material on meta-ontology to support the existence of the article. Also, you haven't responded to Brews ohare's points regarding this. So I'm still opposed to your proposal. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt you could find direct line evidence for any major book. An Editor (not the author mark you) with an editorial team of 249 Philosophers is I think clear evidence of peer review. WP:RS accepts the major publishers as authoritative so if you are worried about wikipedia policy I think we are covered here, but you could take your "lone editor" (still amused by that) argument to the notice board. The simple fact remains that the subject of this article is not considered significant enough to warrant an entry in this or any other equivalent authority that I have seen ----Snowded 08:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your LOL approach to comments is lamentable. A bit of respect for well-meant commentary would lead you to reply directly to points raised and avoid injection of derision as a ploy. A serous response would admit that meta-ontology is a widely used term as indicated in the many references provided in the article and on this Talk page.

Your criterion that there isn't an independent article under the name 'meta-ontology' in some general encyclopedia is not the sole determinant of its importance. You ignore the fact that meta-ontology is discussed in some such works as a sub-topic under 'ontology', as is appropriate because meta-ontology is a sub-topic of ontology. There is considerable material pertaining to meta-ontology, as evidenced here and in meta-ontology, and it is useful to separate this material in meta-ontology where it can be discussed at length, rather than only as an abbreviated sub-section in Ontology, which has plenty on its plate already. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Brews but the assertion that a single editor made all the decisions is derisory so LOL was mild. Its not clear what a definition of 'widely' would be here. The number of references is not that great. Happy to look at references where "meta-ontology" is specifically referenced under ontology, but not where it isn't but you think that is what they mean. Otherwise listing is not the sole determinant, but it is one significant one. ----Snowded 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support This subject, I think, is not quite a seperate subject from Ontology. It would be nice to include in the main article.75* 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistant N: To repeat a published observation: in his § 3.3 Different conceptions of ontology Hofweber says: ", strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed... Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. " Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Finished draft from Bob K31416

Linguistic frameworks

According to Rudolf Carnap, to discuss a kind of entity requires relevant terms which are part of a linguistic framework that includes rules for the use of the terms. In this framework, questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal questions. Two examples of terms for kinds of entities are 'paper' and 'desk' in the linguistic framework of 'everyday language'. An internal question in this framework could be, “Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?” The answer can be found by the empirical method of looking at the desk. Another example is the linguistic framework of 'natural numbers' and an internal question could be, “Is there a prime number greater than 100?” The answer here can be found by a logical method. Linguistic frameworks are either factual or logical, depending on whether the answers to internal questions can be found using empirical or logical methods.

Existence questions that are not asked inside a linguistic framework are called by Carnap 'external questions'. These are questions asked by philosophers and tend to be general in nature, such as "Do numbers exist?" or "Do material objects exist?" These general questions could be asked as internal questions, but then the answer would be obvious in the relevant framework. For the two example questions, the answers found within the framework of everyday language would be trivially "yes, numbers exist" and "yes, material objects exist". However, when a general existence question, like the two example questions, is asked and discussed by philosophers as an external question, there are lengthy arguments that don't result in any generally agreed upon answer. According to Carnap, external questions should be reinterpreted as practical questions about whether or not to accept the relevant linguistic framework, or philosopher's could construct one. In any case, there is no resulting gain in understanding the reality of the related kinds of entities as viewed from outside the framework.

1. ^ Amie L Thomasson (2013). "Carnap and the prospects for easy ontology". §1. Carnap's approach to existence questions. Retrieved 06-04-2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) To be published in Ontology after Carnap Stephan Blatti & Sandra Lapointe (eds.)
   (Section 1 of this reference by Thomasson is summarizing and explaining "§2. Linguistic frameworks" of Carnap, Rudolf (1950). "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology". Revue Internationale de Philosophie. 4: 20–40. Reprinted in Carnap, Rudolf (1956). "Supplement A. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology". Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic (2 ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–221. — On-line version.)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

per discussion with Snowded below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob: How about this change. Instead of

"Two examples of terms for kinds of entities are 'paper' and 'desk' in the linguistic framework of 'everyday language'. An internal question in this framework could be, ‘Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?’"

could we use:

"Two examples of terms for kinds of entities are 'paper' and 'desk' in a linguistic framework based upon 'everyday language'. An internal question in this framework could be, ‘Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?’" Brews ohare (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomasson(2013) and Carnap(1950) are referring to only one linguistic framework regarding everyday language, so I wouldn't want to make that change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: That is simply not true. The idea that there is only one linguistic framework regarding everyday language is an unsupported and incorrect assertion that no author makes. Carnap has pointed out:

"“The acceptance of a new kind of entities is represented in the language by the introduction of a framework of new forms of expressions to be used according to a new set of rules. There may be new names for particular entities of the kind in question; but some such names may already occur in the language before the introduction of the new framework. (Thus, for example, the thing language contains certainly words of the type of "blue" and "house" before the framework of properties is introduced; and it may contain words like "ten" in sentences of the form "I have ten fingers" before the framework of numbers is introduced.)”

IMO, he makes perfectly clear that words are brought from ordinary language into a framework where they are provided with a new set of definitions and rules. Brews ohare (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, how about this change. Instead of:

"In this framework, questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal questions."

could we use:

"Questions that can be answered within a 'framework' are called internal questions."

The restriction of 'internal' questions to 'existence questions posed within a framework' is misleading in that all questions posed within a framework are 'internal', not just existence questions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In Thomasson(2013) and Carnap(1950), the term 'internal questions' doesn't include questions that are not about existence, so I wouldn't want to make that change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: you don't want to extend the definition of internal questions beyond existence questions because that is all Thomasson talks about. Carnap says: "Once we have accepted the thing language with its framework for things, we can raise and answer internal questions, e.g., "Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?" Do you think what Carnap is asking is "Does a white piece of paper exist on my desk?" or is he asking "Is the while piece of paper located on my desk?" Maybe this is overly ambiguous, but it would seem more natural to ask if 'paper' exists or 'desk' exists, than if 'paper on the desk' exists. The contrast between 'internal' and 'external' questions is described as "external questions cannot be settled within a framework, but rather concern the status and legitimacy of the framework itself." We also have this explanation: "Internal questions may concern definitions or facts, and thus may be decided through either logical or empirical mechanisms (that is, they may be analytic or synthetic); what distinguishes them from external questions is the fact that they presuppose the linguistic framework in which they are asked." The huge emphasis in discussion upon 'existence questions' is because most philosophers are not interested in the trivial tautological aspects but in the ontological (i.e. existence) implications. Brews ohare (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob I would be happier with a secondary source for the first part, but otherwise its an improvement on what we have at the moment. Brews I think you are making an artificial distinction its all about existence. ----Snowded 00:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Au contraire, mon cher; I am insisting that 'internal' questions go beyond existence questions. Brews ohare (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all of the first part, i.e. first paragraph, is supported by the secondary source Thomasson(2013). I can make that clearer by removing all the current citations and placing the following footnote at the end of each paragraph.

1. Amie L Thomasson (2013). "Carnap and the prospects for easy ontology". §1. Carnap's approach to existence questions. Retrieved 06-04-2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) To be published in Ontology after Carnap Stephan Blatti & Sandra Lapointe (eds.)

(Section 1 of this reference by Thomasson is summarizing and explaining "§2. Linguistic frameworks" of Carnap, Rudolf (1950). "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology". Revue Internationale de Philosophie. 4: 20–40. Reprinted in Carnap, Rudolf (1956). "Supplement A. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology". Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic (2 ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–221. — On-line version.)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, go with it ----Snowded 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I made this change in my above draft. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Although Snowded has endorsed your paragraph, he has not engaged at all in discussing its content. As I have pointed out earlier and more emphatically below (see this) there are unresolved issues here regarding Carnap's meaning for 'internal' and 'external' questions that require full discussion. It is insufficient to rest all authority upon one discussion by Thomasson that is focused narrowly upon existence issues. Brews ohare (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Two important issues

The most glaring problems with this paragraph are:

1. The statement: "In this framework, questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal questions." While true, it is more generally true that all questions posed within a framework are 'internal' questions.

2. The statement: "Existence questions that are not asked inside a linguistic framework are called by Carnap 'external questions'." While true, it is more generally true that all questions posed outside a linguistic framework are 'external questions'.

I have provided this quotation from a third party in support of these more general statements:

"Internal questions may concern definitions or facts, and thus may be decided through either logical or empirical mechanisms (that is, they may be analytic or synthetic); what distinguishes them from external questions is the fact that they presuppose the linguistic framework in which they are asked."

It is clear that matters of 'definition and fact' are not limited to simple existence issues. For example, in the framework of geometry, the question "Is a square a rectangle?" is not an existence question, but it is a question internal to the framework of geometry.

I also have included the following remark from a different third party:

"External questions cannot be settled within a framework, but rather concern the status and legitimacy of the framework itself."

Clearly, questions about the status of a framework (for example, whether Euclidian or Riemannian geometry apply to some particular situation) go beyond simple existence issues. Carnap would call such a decision a pragmatic matter of practical concern, the only sort of external question he allows as having significance.

Now perhaps, Snowded, you would object that these sources lack sufficient stature in your mind. Bob may feel the same way. But that is no reason to simply ride roughshod over these views and avoid all discussion based upon the fact that Thomasson's article Carnap and the prospects for easy ontology happens to focus upon the existence issues. These matters require a full and proper discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a discussion from one more source:

"So long as we can identify a specific language, in whatever way, we can also draw Carnap's internal/external distinction. For once we have identified a language, then we can identify particular internal questions within it, and the general internal questions whose answers follow logically from the former, given a specific notion of logical consequence; and we can also identify a practical external question about whether we should adopt such a language."

Brews ohare (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the issue regarding 'internal questions' first. In all the quoted excerpts you gave regarding this, could you reread them with 'internal existence question' substituted for 'internal question' and see if they still make sense? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Is it your notion that none of the sources intend to state the general position that 'internal' means internal and 'external' means external? Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This 'test' you propose seems to me to amount to this: if a statement is true not only of a set of objects but of a sub-set, then it is preferable to adopt the more restricted view that the statement applies only to the sub-set. Brews ohare (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To be less argumentative about this, the answer is 'no'. I see no way to restrict the sentence: "For once we have identified a language, then we can identify particular internal questions within it, and the general internal questions whose answers follow logically from the former, given a specific notion of logical consequence"; to being strictly true only of existence questions. And there isn't any doubt that Euclidean geometry is an example of a framework, and that 'Is a square a rectangle?' is an internal question within this framework. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate further, when it comes time to discuss Quine and the notion of 'analytic' statements (those that are true by virtue of semantics, and not by virtue of the nature of the world we live in), the idea of 'internal' questions must allow inclusion of analytic statements and questions. Otherwise, there is just nothing for Quine to talk about. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "To be less argumentative about this, the answer is 'no'. I see no way to restrict the sentence: 'For once we have identified a language, then we can identify particular internal existence questions within it, and the general internal existence questions whose answers follow logically from the former, given a specific notion of logical consequence'; to being strictly true only of existence questions." — Using this sentence in a follow-up of my previous message, here it is with the substitution of 'internal existence question' for 'internal question',

"For once we have identified a language, then we can identify particular internal existence questions within it, and the general internal existence questions whose answers follow logically from the former, given a specific notion of logical consequence."

Does this sentence make sense? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Of course it does make sense. It also makes sense in the original and more general form: "For once we have identified a language, then we can identify particular internal questions within it, and the general internal questions whose answers follow logically from the former, given a specific notion of logical consequence." Maybe I have the wrong idea here, but I think you are headed in the direction that a narrower interpretation being true, it is more correct than the original broader formulation that naturally included the narrower one. In a different example, "Murder using a weapon is wrong" includes "Murder using a knife is wrong". Brews ohare (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When you posted this quoted excerpt and the others using 'internal question', I thought your point was that in the context of those excerpts, 'internal question' couldn't mean just 'internal existence question' because it wouldn't make sense. If that wasn't your point , then what was the point of providing all those excerpts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Sorry I was not clear. My point was that internal questions are not limited to questions of existence, but include any and all questions of whatever nature that can be posed using the vocabulary of a linguistic framework. An example I have used is: "Is a square a rectangle?". This is a question of an analytic nature, not an existence question like: "Is there such a thing as a square?" or: "Is a square real?". It is a question 'internal' to the framework, and is answered using the rules and definitions of whatever geometry we have selected.

If some uncertainties remain, please let me know. Brews ohare (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A different example posed internal to the system of natural numbers would be "Is 6 greater than 5?" It is not a question like "Does the number 5 exist?" or "Is the number 5 real". It is an internal question decided by the rules and definitions of the system of integers. Brews ohare (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "My point was that internal questions are not limited to questions of existence" — Here's an excerpt from the first paragraph of "§2. Linguistic frameworks" of the source Carnap(1950) where Carnap explicitly defines the term 'internal question'.

"And now we must distinguish two kinds of questions of existence: first, questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework; we call them internal questions; and second, questions concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole, called external questions."

Do you know of any excerpt where Carnap has explicitly modified this definition of 'internal question' to include questions other than just questions of existence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob: We are becoming real lawyers over this eh? You will notice that the first sentence "And now we must distinguish two kinds of questions of existence" explicitly restricts the discussion to questions of existence. That of course does not suggest that there are no other kinds of questions. The reason for this focus is that a major subject of debate with Quine is 'ontology' which deals with existence issues. I believe that my lengthy exposition based upon Carnap quotes illustrates some situations that are more general. However, I'll look at this harder tomorrow. Am I to understand that you do not wish to entertain the other authors I've quoted? Brews ohare (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "You will notice that the first sentence 'And now we must distinguish two kinds of questions of existence' explicitly restricts the discussion to questions of existence." — Yes, it is a discussion of existence questions, and the term 'internal question' is defined as "questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework". No other definition of 'internal question' is given in Carnap(1950) that includes questions other than questions of existence.

Re "Am I to understand that you do not wish to entertain the other authors I've quoted? " — No. You can quote other authors and we'll see if any of them explicitly modify Carnap's definition of 'internal question' to include questions other than questions of existence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I'll look further into this, although I think the point has already been made. Your statement: "the term 'internal question' is defined as ‘questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework’." over-reaches. What Carnap says verbatim is : “And now we must distinguish two kinds of questions of existence: first, questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework; we call them internal questions; and second, questions concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole, called external questions.” You have chosen to ignore the topic sentence: distinguish two kinds of questions of existence and taken the subject instead to be inclusive of all and every type of question. It isn't; it is a discussion of the types of existence question. I emphasize this point lest you think Carnap has defined out of existence what are usually called analytic statements, which would make the argument over the analytic-synthetic distinction unintelligible. Carnap and indeed nobody would argue that a question like "Is 6 > 5?" exists as an external question. You would argue that it also is not an internal question, so apparently the division into 'internal' and 'external' is not all-encompassing and there are other kinds of questions that cannot be classified either way. Brews ohare (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the accurate statement is that 'existence' questions of all types do not exhaust the population of all questions, while the classifications of 'internal' and 'external' together & jointly include all possible questions. Brews ohare (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it settle the matter if it is shown that internal questions encompass all analytic questions (like "Are all bachelors unmarried"), not just existence question? Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have something in mind, I'll look at it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are four quotes from Carnap's Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology

1. “To accept the thing world means nothing more than to accept a certain form of language, in other words, to accept rules for forming statements and for testing accepting or rejecting them.”
2. “If someone wishes to speak in his language about a new kind of entities, he has to introduce a system of new ways of speaking, subject to new rules; we shall call this procedure the construction of a linguistic framework for the new entities in question.”
3. “The acceptance of a new kind of entities is represented in the language by the introduction of a framework of new forms of expressions to be used according to a new set of rules. There may be new names for particular entities of the kind in question; but some such names may already occur in the language before the introduction of the new framework. (Thus, for example, the thing language contains certainly words of the type of "blue" and "house" before the framework of properties is introduced; and it may contain words like "ten" in sentences of the form "I have ten fingers" before the framework of numbers is introduced.)”
4. “After the new forms are introduced into the language, it is possible to formulate with their help internal questions and possible answers to them. A question of this kind may be either empirical or logical; accordingly a true answer is either factually true or analytic.”

I believe this sequence of quotations introduces the subject and the definition of 'internal' questions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is Kate Stafford:

"According to Carnap, discussing a new kind of entity requires the construction of a linguistic framework, defined as a new set of rules governing the ways in which these entities are described and referenced. A linguistic framework is thus a way of organizing human communication about particular sets of experiences or observations. For every linguistic framework there exist two types of questions: internal questions, which are asked and answered within the framework, and external questions asked of the larger system within which the entities are supposed to exist. Internal questions may concern definitions or facts, and thus may be decided through either logical or empirical mechanisms (that is, they may be analytic or synthetic); what distinguishes them from external questions is the fact that they presuppose the linguistic framework in which they are asked. Thus “Where did I leave my keys?”, “Is ice frozen water?”, “Who was Julius Caesar’s father?”, and “What kind of quarks are protons made of?” are all internal questions with respect to thing-language."

Brews ohare (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is Juhl & Loomis (my underscore):

"Properly executed, an explication would show us how what looked like meaningful philosophical statements were in fact the result of confusing ‘internal’ questions about what is true within a particular language (such as analytic truths of that language) with ‘external’ questions about a system of language as a whole. In fact, Carnap argued, only internal questions are genuine, but internal questions do not require philosophers to answer them"

Brews ohare (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Kate Stafford paper is not a reliable source since it was a paper by a student (Kate Stafford) for an assignment in her college class. (See the section "Examples of Student Work" in the lower part of this webpage.)
• The only explicit definition of 'internal question' that I could find in Juhl & Loomis was a quote of Carnap on p. 61 that was mentioned previously in this discussion,

"First, questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework; we call them internal questions; and second, questions concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole, called external questions."

The quote in your last message seems to be using 'internal question' in a more general sense than the above definition, but since the quote in your last message isn't an explicit definition of the term, I don't think we should overrule Carnap and Thomasson by doing original research to construct a definition of 'internal question' from it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you as to the status of the Kate Stafford source. However, you will agree that she sees things exactly as I do. Apparently she and I, in your view, have a common defect of understanding. I have no idea how you arrive at Juhl & Loomis as extending Carnap's meaning. They themselves think they are presenting Carnap's position, and you will be very, very hard-pressed to present anything from Carnap that contradicts them. (Bob, in the interest of objectivity, try this exercise. It cannot be done.)

I've provided quotes from Carnap and others about a more general meaning for internal questions. Apparently the failure to classify analytic statements like ‘squares are rectangles’ as internal questions does not trouble you, nor indeed the looming prospect in the next section of making sense of how the analytic-synthetic distinction was connected by Quine to the internal-external definitions.

I can support your saying that the vast majority of the literature is about ontology and has no other interest in the internal-external distinction beyond existence questions, because that is what ontology is about. I'd agree if that aspect were emphasized.

But I cannot agree with the idea of actually saying that Carnap and Thomasson support the view that the common-sense notion that 'internal' means internal to a framework and 'external' means external is wrong outside the realm of existence questions. That goes beyond anything they (or indeed any other sources) support.

Bob, your comment that we should not overrule Carnap and Thomasson is a wrong description of your suggestion. You do not accept that Thomasson's discussion is merely limited to 'existence' questions, but prefer to interpret it as a discussion that is somehow a limitation upon internal questions, although she (and no other author, either) says anything of the kind. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't seem to be communicating, so this ends the discussion for me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I don't think you read my reply - another TLDR, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I've read and considered every word of your messages in our discussions. The TL;DR comment I made to Snowded previously was referring to the problem facing editors other than you and me. I think there may be a lot of self deception in your personality in order to cope with the psychological challenges involved in editing Misplaced Pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bob, I am glad you read what I had to say. Mostly it agrees with you. The fundamental point of disagreement is simply that the statements by Kate Stafford and by Juhl & Thomas that you dismiss along with mine are not in conflict with Thomasson and Carnap, but compatible with them. That is not your position, but you have not found anything in Carnap or Thomasson to support incompatibility.

It may indeed be a personality disorder on my part to take such a matter seriously - how much concern should be given to yet another problem with presentation in Misplaced Pages? Brews ohare (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A last remaining issue

The remaining issue I have with this paragraph is the statement:

"Two examples of terms for kinds of entities are 'paper' and 'desk' in the linguistic framework of 'everyday language'."

This statement is almost verbatim from Thomasson, who says:

"Internal questions Carnap initially characterizes as “questions of the existence of certain entities of the new kind within the framework”; they include questions (asked within the framework of everyday language) such as “Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?” (1950, 207)... "

However, in this case Thomasson has chosen words similar to Carnap's but has changed Carnap's meaning. Carnap says:

"Once we have accepted the thing language with its framework for things, we can raise and answer internal questions, e.g., ‘Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?’"

Now Carnap explicitly says this question is to be asked within the "thing language", which is identified as "the spatio-temporally ordered system of observable things and events". The 'thing language' is not everyday language, although it uses words that are also used in everyday language. The 'thing language' is not called 'everyday language' because it is not a synonym for 'everyday language'. Rather it is a linguistic framework.

The issue of whether 'everyday language' is a framework can be compared with Wittgenstein:

"I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all, - but that they are related to one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or these relationships, that we call them all language. ...To repeat. we can draw a boundary - for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all! (Except for that special purpose.)" (Philosophical Investigations §65. §69).

In other words, to make a meaning sharp and relations precise, one has to abstract from 'everyday language' using a boundary upon meaning and relationships that serves a special purpose, in other words, a 'linguistic framework'. I am not suggesting that Wittgenstein is directly addressing Carnap in this instance (although he has done so elsewhere). The point is just to draw attention to the difference between usage for a special purpose and usage in everyday language. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a classic. You object to the secondary source on the basis of your interpretation of Carnap's meaning. Then you bring in your interpretation of Wittgenstein. This is clear original research. Otherwise I realise that not agreeing with you means I am not (in Brew's speak) engaging with the problem. The simple fact is that I am not prepared to engage in discussion about primary sources. I am readily prepared to agree with an editor who uses secondary ones ----Snowded 14:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These remarks have been clearly identified as an attempt to convey the issues here for purposes of discussion. On the other hand, Snowded, your remarks are interpretable as an attempt to block discussion of this matter by introduction of hostility and derision. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How to proceed

Snowded, Considering the long discussions that I have been having with Brews ohare, it doesn't seem worthwhile for me to continue working on this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I an understand that fully. Once he has decided on an interpretation or an approach he will not let go. Hence his block record. I'm loosing the will to live over multiple articles so I'm really just policing at the moment to make sure we don't get a mass of original research and/or synthesis. However you showed more patience than I so kudos! ----Snowded 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: As is your wont, rather than contribute to understanding of material or between editors, you step in to help widen any rift with no comment about content or assistance with meeting of minds. Instead it is just one more opportunity for slander and self-congratulation. Brews ohare (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: The length of the discussion between us is not a problem; the problem is its course.

We have a situation where you wish to assert that Carnap's and Thomasson's discussions about 'internal existence questions' are an indication that the only internal questions are internal existence questions.

I wish to assert that is not the case, that 'internal' questions include questions about how the framework is constructed - like "Are squares rectangles?".

Now how is this to be reconciled? I have tried three approaches to meet your objection: (i) providing sources that agree with me. You discount them. (ii) providing quotes from Carnap that support me. You ignore them. (iii) providing the logical point that discussing internal existence questions is not tantamount to saying other kinds of internal questions do not exist. You ignore this point.

So, from my standpoint, the reason for the length of our exchange is that I have tried several ways to reach you, but you do not respond directly. Could you do that? Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted one word 'existence' into your text that, in my opinion, makes it factual although not as illuminating as it might be. If you consent to this change, I'll close our discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded inconveniently removed the text with my additions of the word 'existence' so you may find it here. A few other minor changes were made that have no effect upon your meaning. Brews ohare (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no point in agreeing something on the talk page if your first reaction to not having wider changes accepted is to attempt to qualify the agreed text. its time wasting. You don't think Bob responds directly, you don;t think I respond to your content discussions. Well take that revert as a response. If you can't agree something on the talk page leave the article alone. ----Snowded 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of any agreement so far, and my changes were, I thought, a minor change that would meet Bob's approval. You, Snowded, were anxious to intervene where intervention was unnecessary. I think Bob can look after things quite well. Brews ohare (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My above comments stand ----Snowded 08:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A sourced version of Carnap proposal

Below I repeat a summary of Carnap's position presented in an earlier thread with accompanying footnotes to assist in the assessment of the accuracy of this presentation. The footnotes are taken from Rudolf Carnap (1950). "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology". Revue Internationale de Philosophie. 4: 40–50. In my opinion this document in its entirety provides a very clear presentation of Carnap's views with many examples. The presentation below is a very brief summary that cannot replace a reading of this paper.

The argument may be raised that this paper by Carnap is an inadequate basis for understanding his work on this topic. Of course, an assessment of the value and reception of his contribution has to be established through other sources. However, I very much doubt that any other author will present Carnap's position more articulately than Carnap himself.

If there are objections that this summary inadequately presents Carnap's views, I would appreciate help in reformulating this summary. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Carnap introduced the idea of a 'framework' or a 'form of language' that uses a more precise specification of the relationships between entities than that used in everyday language. The discussion of a proposition within a framework can take on a logical or an empirical (that is, factual) aspect. The logical aspect concerns whether the proposition respects the definitions and rules set up in the framework. The empirical aspect concerns the application of the framework in some or another practical situation. An example of entities and their framework would be 'squares' and 'rectangles' in the framework of 'geometry'. An internal logical question in this framework could be, “Is a square a rectangle?” The answer can be found by a logical analysis. An internal empirical question would be “Is this desk top a square or a rectangle?”. The answer here is found by observations and comparisons with the relations required by the framework for squares and rectangles. (For example, are the diagonals equal or not?) In contrast to these 'internal' questions, are those Carnap calls 'external', those questions that purport to have meaning outside or external to any framework. An example of what could be an external question is “Is a square a real thing?” According to Carnap, the term 'real' in this question cannot be posed meaningfully except in a comparison of frameworks. To be meaningful, such a question is to be interpreted as asking whether a concept is useful. For example, is a square, as proposed in some particular geometry, a useful concept. This particular question is one that might be addressed in deciding the issue: “Are we using a geometry adequate for this situation?” (For example, Euclidean geometry, spherical geometry, Riemannian geometry.) Any interpretation of the question: “Is such-and-such real?”, as other than inquiring about the utility of the concept of such-and-such, is considered by Carnap to be nonsense.

Quotes

Rudolf Carnap Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology “To accept the thing world means nothing more than to accept a certain form of language, in other words, to accept rules for forming statements and for testing accepting or rejecting them.”

ibid: “If someone wishes to speak in his language about a new kind of entities, he has to introduce a system of new ways of speaking, subject to new rules; we shall call this procedure the construction of a linguistic framework for the new entities in question.”

ibid “The acceptance of a new kind of entities is represented in the language by the introduction of a framework of new forms of expressions to be used according to a new set of rules. There may be new names for particular entities of the kind in question; but some such names may already occur in the language before the introduction of the new framework. (Thus, for example, the thing language contains certainly words of the type of "blue" and "house" before the framework of properties is introduced; and it may contain words like "ten" in sentences of the form "I have ten fingers" before the framework of numbers is introduced.)”

[4} ibid “After the new forms are introduced into the language, it is possible to formulate with their help internal questions and possible answers to them. A question of this kind may be either empirical or logical; accordingly a true answer is either factually true or analytic.”

ibid “Results of observations are evaluated according to certain rules as confirming or disconfirming evidence for possible answers.”

ibid “From the internal questions we must clearly distinguish external questions, i.e., philosophical questions concerning the existence or reality of the total system of the new entities. Many philosophers regard a question of this kind as an ontological question which must be raised and answered before the introduction of the new language forms. ”

ibid “To be real in the scientific sense means to be an element of the system; hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself. Those who raise the question of the reality of the thing world itself have perhaps in mind not a theoretical question as their formulation seems to suggest, but rather a practical question, a matter of a practical decision concerning the structure of our language. We have to make the choice whether or not to accept and use the forms of expression in the framework in question.”

ibid “To be sure, we have to face at this point an important question; but it is a practical, not a theoretical question; it is the question of whether or not to accept the new linguistic forms. The acceptance cannot be judged as being either true or false because it is not an assertion. It can only be judged as being more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aim for which the language is intended. Judgments of this kind supply the motivation for the decision of accepting or rejecting the kind of entities.”

ibid “Thus it is clear that the acceptance of a linguistic framework must not be regarded as implying a metaphysical doctrine concerning the reality of the entities in question.”

ibid “From these questions we must distinguish the external question of the reality of the thing world itself. ... In contrast to the former questions, this question cannot be solved because it is framed in a wrong way. To be real in the scientific sense means to be an element of the system; hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself.”

ibid “the decisive question is not the alleged ontological question of the existence of abstract entities but rather the question whether the rise of abstract linguistic forms or, in technical terms, the use of variables beyond those for things (or phenomenal data), is expedient and fruitful for the purposes for which semantical analyses are made, viz. the analysis, interpretation, clarification, or construction of languages of communication, especially languages of science.”

Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion not all these footnoted quotations are necessary to the WP article on Meta-ontology. Their purpose here is to help those editors who apparently feel that the presentation is at odds with Carnap's views to revisit that assessment. The quotes show that this summary adheres closely to what Carnap has to say. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

enough

Another thread opened with another lengthy set of text. It includes the phrase "However, I very much doubt that any other author will present Carnap's position more articulately than Carnap himself." which may well be right, but it is not the way Misplaced Pages works. ----Snowded 00:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: What has 'the way WP works' got to do with this anyway? Brews ohare (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How many times Brews? We do not use primary sources to summarise an overall position. You keep ignoring that, in fact you argue its wrong. You may be right but (and I repeat) its not the way things work around here. ----Snowded 02:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your view simply put is that a statement made by Carnap is not best sourced to Carnap but to some paraphrase by a third party. You also apparently believe that any summary of a source cannot be attempted by a WP editor, but must be a verbatim quote from a third party.

That is not how it works around here.

What does work around here is that points in an article are attributed to sources and footnotes provided. If another editor finds the source does not support the statement, then they object, and either the statement is changed or a different source is found.

Now, you do not wish to engage in any such comparison of sources and assertions, but have devised a different way to do things, that leads to zero progress. You simply announce your own personal opinion and your own personal view about violation of WP policies. Without, of course, pointing out what is the cause of the violation, nor why the policy applies, nor what changes in statement would fix things to meet your approval. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In the preceding thread we have a case in point, where instead of offering any objections or pointing out any place in the preceding thread where Carnap has been misrepresented, you open a new thread to bitch about generalities, the need for third-party sources where none are required, and my failures to understand you and 'what works'. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't bitched about anything Brews. I have patiently pointed out issues. So have other editors both directly and in RfCs. just look at this page, thousands of words split over multiple sections, mostly using primary sources. As to progress, we will make zero progress until you learn to work with other editors and respect policy. I thought you had improved but this is now borderline ArbCom enforcement report again ----Snowded 05:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to 'primary sources', eh Snowded? If you think some portion of the above segment about Carnap has an issue involving WP policy, why is it that you never refer to any part of any WP policy that supports your position? Instead, you just wave the suggestion of violation without spelling out the offending material and which portion of what policy applies. Could it be that you misunderstand the role of primary sources on WP? I think so. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've spelt it out Brews here and elsewhere. You have a long record of thinking you "know" ...----Snowded 15:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This response avoids anew any attempt by yourself to be clear about your position. You "have spelt it out here and elsewhere" only in your imagination. Not only have you said NOTHING about the above segment about Carnap (aside from your general displeasure), but you have followed this same pattern of referral to non-existent discussion again and again. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you hold that opinion Brews ----Snowded 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

An evidence of your acknowledgment would be a substantive comment about the above segment about Carnap pointing out exactly how WP policy regarding primary sources applies here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2)013 (UTC)

Read the opening two comments in this thread Brews. Then in WP:PRIMARY note "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" ----Snowded 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy is: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source." Can you point to something in the above segment about Carnap you consider to be interpretation, analysis, or synthesis? If you point something out, maybe it can be fixed or sourced differently. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

and where is the secondary source Brews? Strings of direct quotations are selections so they are by their nature a form of interpretation ----Snowded 21:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The section is not a string of quotations; it is supported by a string of quotations from Carnap, whose sole purpose is to show that the position of Carnap is well portrayed. However, at this point I am unconcerned about your inability to appraise this section, because it is going nowhere. Its only purpose at this point is to make clear to Bob what Carnap's position is based upon Carnap's own words. It would appear that Bob doesn't want to hear about this, so I have quoted third parties about Carnap to the same effect. Bob will ignore them as well, I'm afraid.

Bottom line here is that the treatment of Carnap will remain erroneous and unsupported by any sources, let alone Carnap himself. Brews ohare (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, your selection supported by a string of quotations. You will be consistently ignored by many editors until you get your mind around this ----Snowded 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no further expectations for this proposal, as I have already said. What disturbs me more is that you, Snowded, will not participate in helping Bob correct obvious deficiencies in his paragraph. Brews ohare (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I haven't responded so far to your more recent comments on these issues, I've been working outside this discussion on a response to them. Looks like your points have been spread between two sections. It would be helpful if you consolidated your points in one place. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: I am glad to hear this. Brews ohare (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you move your appropriate comments that are here to the section "Finished draft from Bob K31416"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Bob, of course. Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The analytic/synthetic distinction

The section Meta-ontology#Carnap_and_Quine refers to the focus of Inwagen's introduction of the term 'meta-ontology' as being motivated by the presentation of Carnap's and Quine's positions on the analytic/synthetic distinction. This is the idea, then, as to why the presentation is set up in this way.

However, the subsequent discussion of Carnap's position does not mention the analytic/synthetic distinction.

It would appear some additional remarks are needed about Carnap's position on the analytic/synthetic distinction in order to follow through with the ostensible purpose of bringing it all up. Brews ohare (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be that as an alternative the first sentences should be changed to characterize Inwagen's discussion of the Quine-Carnap debate differently. That might avoid the need to go into the analytic-synthetic question. Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am bewildered to find that Inwagen's work actually refers neither to the analytic/synthetic distinction nor to the internal/external distinction. He has one footnote (number 10) that says "See for example Quine’s discussion (Quine 1951) of Carnap’s distinction between “internal” and “external” questions." which is a footnote to Inwagen's reference to Quine's treatment of "quantification in ontological contexts", whatever one wants to make of that. He says that " Quine’s meta-ontology comprises such propositions as his theses on quantification and ontological commitment and he goes on to list 5 aspects of this work that he thinks are meta-ontology. It begins to appear that we need a different way to connect the Quine-Carnap dispute to meta-ontology. Inwagen is not going to do it. Maybe Thomasson will do it? Brews ohare (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It illustrates the subject Brews, it is not the subject ----Snowded 20:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to understand your remark, Snowded. The evaluation of the ontologies presented in the Carnap and Quine sections is intended to illustrate meta-ontology, but the connection has not been made so far. Brews ohare (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Inwagen's description illustrates his use of the term 'meta-ontology' which is what this is all about. You constantly seek to extend that into a detailed discussion of the Quine-Carnap debate. The problem with this has been explained to you by at least two editors in your posting on primary sources at the RS discussion but you seem not to be listening/paying attention to that. Also you need to think about how many actual edits you are managing to get into the articles you are working on, the lack of support from other editors and the sheer length of your postings on talk pages. Its getting too much and you are therefore getting minimal responses and engagement. That is only going to get worse over time unless you keep it shorter and within policy ----Snowded 22:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As you often do , Snowded, you have misrepresented the point of my remarks in their entirety to make some room for a rant about my behavior that contributes nothing to the evolution of this article. Brews ohare (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not a rant Brews, its advice ----Snowded 22:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are so kind to look for my welfare. I'd rather you attended to contributing to the article. Brews ohare (talk)

The advise related to your contributions and it stands ----Snowded 08:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomasson on Carnapian metaontology

In her Prospects paper, Thomasson refers to Price's distinction between use and mention as an interpretation of the internal/external division. One can use a term only within a framework, but in discussing frameworks one can mention a term without need for a particular framework. Quoting Price: "The only legitimate external questions simply mention the terms in question." She speaks about the Carnapian approach to metaontology, and I'd propose that it is this that we want to point out in the Carnap section of the article on meta-ontology. She claims that Carnap has restricted the existence of entities to existence within a framework, but there is work to be done in explaining how conceptual choices between frameworks are to be made. These are pragmatic issues, discussed by 'mentioning' concepts, not inquiries into what really exists. That is the Carnapian deflationary ontology. How is this matter to be presented? Brews ohare (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In order to include that material you would need to show how it applies specifically to the article subject. The purpose of the material on Carnap is to illustrate the subject, this is not an article on Carnap per se. We also need to remember that metaontology is a post Carnapian term so talking about Carnapian metaontology makes no sense. ----Snowded 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's great to hear from you Snowded, but you are again taking it a bit too easy on yourself in identifying the ridiculous and the impossible. Although the word was coined after the era of Carnap, it doesn't mean that it can't be applied to some of his activities, as is in fact done by Thomasson. She would be hurt, I imagine, to hear your judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And if we look at Thomasson's use in so far as it illustrates the topic of the article that is fine Brews. Try and read before you respond ----Snowded 01:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: do you have any particular comments to make about the above presentation of Thomasson's views about Carnapian meta-ontology? In her introduction she says "the prospects for a neo-Carnapian meta-ontology are really rather good" One might suppose that a neo-Carnapian meta-ontology presupposes a Carnapian meta-ontology. Do you agree? She continues by discussing the 'internal-external' separation of Carnap. I gather that the Carnapian meta-ontology is the meta-consideration that an ontology consists of two parts - the internal part related to frameworks and the external part that prevails outside frameworks. It is 'meta'-ontology because it is not about a particular ontology but a view of ontologies in general, regardless of their particular assertions about what is. At any rate, apparently Thomasson thinks this is meta-ontology and, when it is combined with Carnap's views about the nature of the two portions of all ontologies, calls it "Carnapian deflationism". BTW, Price entitles §2 of his paper: 'Carnap's Deflationism' and also focuses upon his internal-external division of all ontolgies. Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Propose an amendment and I will look at it Brews, but I am not prepared to waste anymore time engaging in general discussion of the topic ----Snowded 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: A preliminary problem is the introductory sentence "Inwagen exemplified meta-ontology by analyzing Quine's critique of Carnap's analytic/synthetic distinction" because it is incorrect. Inwagen's notion of meta-ontology was concerned with Quine's methodology in applying quantification and ontological commitment. In contrast, Thomasson's concern is with the internal-external distinction, which is what she calls Carnap's meta-ontology, and what she and Price call 'Carnapian deflationism'. Deflationism is a form of meta-ontology, which in Carnap's case depends upon his internal-external distinction. So we first have to determine whether you agree with this appraisal. I have laid out the basis for the latter. Inwagen's own paper is adequate basis for the first. You can just look at the situation and decide what you think is going on, or suggest what needs to be done to establish the point in your opinion if these three sources appear to you inadequate. Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the leading sentence to provide a more accurate description and segue to the following sub-subsections. Brews ohare (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added a summary paragraph to the section on Carnap with additional sources. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article should not be an extended article on the Carnap-Quine debate, it is here only used as an illustration. We really need to cut that section back to a one/two paragraph summary not extend it. I have simplified the first sentence and removed your additional paragraph. ----Snowded 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your explanation here for reverting useful changes to the section Meta-ontology#Carnap_and_Quine based upon simply your personal conception of how long the section should be is completely arbitrary and simply your personal taste. Your predilections (already expressed in your merger proposal) are not WP policy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The summary paragraph you removed and I have replaced serves several purposes. Among them, it identifies what is Carnapian meta-ontology, which should be done as this article is about 'meta-ontology', and it supplies supporting references for this identification. It also introduces the term 'Carnapian deflationism', with sources for its identification, a form of Carnapian meta-ontology that goes further than his internal-external division and also belongs in a section about Carnap's position. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your version of what Inwagen said and did is incorrect. Brews ohare (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Brews you are in my opinion expanding this material beyond its purpose of explaining the term, You are writing essays and your explanation if the summary paragraph confirms this. You may have your own 'arbitary' views of the article that exhibit your own 'personal taste' but I am afraid I disagree with you. So I have reverted while we resolve this. ----Snowded 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears the 'we' who have to resolve this consist of you and I. Inasmuch as you have afforded no explanation of just why you think this contribution is a personal 'essay', which I find no grounds for saying, and a matter of 'personal taste', again unsubstantiated, can you provide anything more substantial in the way of opposing this contribution? Brews ohare (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just above your last entry, I have pointed out the purpose and accomplishments of the summary paragraph, and it is all sourced, not a matter of my opinion at all. Can you make any objective comments about it? Brews ohare (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have stated clearly that in my opinion the article is about meta-ontology and material on Carnap-Quine is only relevant in so far as it explains the subject. Your paragraph (and other material) was an expansion of said debate that adds nothing to the article. As I also said if anything the material should be shortened and summarised If you don't find that clear then I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. As to terms like 'personal taste', don't use them and try and recognise irony when you see it, the quotation marks were there to help you spot that.----Snowded 21:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your opinion that this article should be not only shortened but merged with Ontology are perfectly clear. What you do not recognize is that your desires are not based upon any substantial argument. If 'personal taste' is irony when you use it, well, right back at you. Brews ohare (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that the summary paragraph makes no contribution to the article is refuted by what has been said already: "Among its contributions, it identifies what is Carnapian meta-ontology, which should be done as this article is about 'meta-ontology', and it supplies supporting references for this identification. It also introduces the term 'Carnapian deflationism', with sources for its identification, a form of Carnapian meta-ontology that goes further than his internal-external division and also belongs in a section about Carnap's position." Brews ohare (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have already driven one editor who tried to work with you from participation; not sure if you have learning any lesson from that. I've increasingly lost any motivation to explain things to you again and again when you don't listen to anyone who disagrees with you. The issue of merge and relevance are separate ones as you should know. In respect of your second paragraph, you make my point well. You are trying to make this a general essay on Carnap rather than its use as an exemplar or illustration of the use of the term meta-ontology. It is essay writing and also WP:Synth in respect of what you are choosing as important. ----Snowded 21:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You have never undertaken to explain anything beyond your personal opinions based upon nothing at all. Your remarks about the above summary are in direct conflict with its content and my statement of its purpose. Brews ohare (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To support my assertions, notice the following points. The proposed summary paragraph points out specifically that Carnap's meta-ontology consists of two parts: his internal-external distinction and his deflationism. The material preceding the summary does not do this, so the summary is useful in clarifying the connection to the article's subject: Meta-ontology.

You have not argued about this; instead you launch again into your refrain about my personal deficiencies (as you see them) and your noble patience in avoiding all useful activity. Critique the material, not its contributor. Brews ohare (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the above, then read Mark 7:5 Brews. The explanation is clear, you either don't want to, or can't understand it. I've had enough of repeating myself in the face of obduracy ----Snowded 20:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mark 7:5 " And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” " What is the relevance here, Snowded? It appears to me that it has little to do with critiquing me instead of the material. The proposed summary paragraph points out specifically that Carnap's meta-ontology consists of two parts: his internal-external distinction and his deflationism. The material preceding the summary does not do this, so the summary is useful in clarifying the connection to the article's subject: Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew not Mark - sorry Brews my memory failed me there I should have looked it up. Mind you I rather like the error, raises interesting questions ----Snowded 10:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

One more instance of a common occurrence: quotation of scripture to duck issues and avoid thought about the issues. The proposed summary paragraph points out specifically that Carnap's meta-ontology consists of two parts: his internal-external distinction and his deflationism. The material preceding the summary does not do this, so the summary is useful in clarifying the connection to the article's subject: Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Quine's approach

The section Meta-ontology#Quine's approach jumps from the internal-external distinction of Carnap to the analytic-synthetic distinction as though these two ideas were the same. That is not so, and the relation between the two has to be established if the analytic/synthetic distinction is to be brought up. Quine's Two dogmas of empiricism, often taken as his definitive critique of Carnap, is all about the analytic/synthetic division. However, it is addressed to Carnap's book about logic, his Meaning and Necessity, and Carnap's formulation of his meta-ontology, his Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology, does not mention this subject at all. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yablo calls this "guilt by association". Carnap includes both analytic and synthetic statements within 'internal questions', that is, internal questions may concern definitions or facts, and thus may be decided through either logical or empirical means. According to Decock "The construction of logical frameworks led to a distinction between logical statements and descriptive statements. This was called the analytic-synthetic distinction, and it can be regarded as the successor of both the Kantian analytic/synthetic and a priori-a/posteriori distinctions." According to Alspector-Kelly "The role of the analytic/synthetic distinction in Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology is independent of the internal/external distinction and of Carnap's repudiation of external questions." Graham Bird accuses Quine of a mistaken identification of the two: "Now it is one thing to claim that the analytic/synthetic distinction can be used to support the external/internal distinction, and another to claim that the contrasts are effectively identical. Yet it is the stronger claim which Quine also indicates..." Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion about how to treat this issue is to point out Quine conflated the two distinctions, and several authors have pointed out that this is a mistaken view. Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A problem impacting this discussion of the analytic/synthetic distinction arises from its apparent exclusion implied in the preceding discussion of Carnap in Meta-ontology#Linguistic frameworks. This discussion contains an ambiguity allowing the mistaken implication that all internal questions are existence questions. That interpretation excludes all 'analytic' statements, and vitiates any consideration of the analytic/synthetic distinction. I've suggested this ambiguity be fixed by inserting the adjective 'existence' in the statement (underscored addition): "questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal existence questions" Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated some of these sources and a brief statement in the section Meta-ontology#Quine's approach. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop opening multiple and lengthy threads, its seems designed to break up discussion and discourage other editors from participation. ----Snowded 20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It is a separate issue, and there is no reason to delay its discussion while other matters are underway. As usual, you have made no comments about the specific content of this (or any other) proposed material. Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Same issue, expansion of material beyond that relevant to the article name. ----Snowded 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is (as I am sure you know) ridiculous to say in an article that discusses meta-ontology that pointing out that Quine's objections to Carnap's meta-ontology are known to be an erroneous conflation of internal/external with analytic/synthetic, for which three sources are supplied. I am afraid that your main objection to this material is that I am involved in its contribution here, especially as no alternative reason in line with WP etiquette or policy is presented by you. Brews ohare (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My objection is as stated Brews. Your statement shows that you are attempting additional commentary over and above what is needed. Further that what is there is excessive and needs to be summarised into a paragraph or two. Your involvement over many articles is highly disruptive, but where you have made a useful contribution I have not reverted. The fact that you seem unable to learn from interactions with multiple editors over time is your problem not mine----Snowded 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your reply above is pure blather without one word of content. Brews ohare (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Having examined this dispute, I would have to say I concur with Snowded. Please stop reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge: In common with Snowded, you make no substantive comment about the proposed additional material, but simply add a ‘me too!!’ Let me point out what you are subscribing to. The last half of the present section on Quine is about his arguments concerning the analytic-synthetic distinction. No connection is made between this topic and meta-ontology, the subject of this article. Carnap's meta-ontology concerns the internal-external distinction, not the analytic-synthetic distinction. Confusion over the connection between the two is historically important, so probably the topic should be brought up, but if that is done, it requires clarification.

The proposed material, which Snowded and now yourself object to, points out these facts, and provides three impeccable sources to back it up. So, what is the objection, specifically? Brews ohare (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Brews, the point is that this is an article about meta-ontology, not one about the connection/difference between 'distinctions'. So if you want to remove material that would be welcome. At most we should have one/two summary paragraphs ----Snowded 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: The added material about Quine is about about a confusion over what Quine objected to when he made meta-ontological assertions about Carnap's approach - the analytic/synthetic viz a viz the internal/external. I think you should read the material again, perhaps a little more slowly so it can sink in. Brews ohare (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Brews I won't. I have made a point that you don't accept. Just repeating again and again and again and again that you think you are right is not going to make a difference. The edit is not agreed ----Snowded 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It is odd that you tire of 'repeating over and over again' your 'point'. Your 'point' as stated above is that Meta-ontology an article about 'meta-ontology'. We all know that. To progress further it would help to know how the proposed material fails to qualify as being about meta-ontology.

You say, Snowded, that pointing out that the 'analytic-synthetic' argument is considered by many philosophers as not correctly used by Quine in addressing Carnap is not significant. The 'analytic-synthetic' argument underlies a very large part of Quine's work and reputation and is the basis for several articles on WP: among them radical translation, indeterminacy of translation, holophrastic indeterminacy, inscrutability of reference. So, without the analytic-synthetic arguments, we are left with (possibly) ontological commitment and existential quantification. Apparently you think the treatment of Quine's meta-ontology need not alert the reader to any of this background, because "it is not 'meta-ontology'". The weak basis for this position leads me to think your resistance is for other reasons, not the nature of the material you object to, which clearly does fall under meta-ontology and is discussed as meta-ontology by Inwagen, Thomasson, Price, Eklund, Bird ... Brews ohare (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The material is only relevant in so far as it illustrates what the term means Brews. You seem to what to use this article for an extended discussion which is not related to that. I have made no comment on the relevance of the analytic-synthetic argument to Quine's work and reputation ----Snowded 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your comment is baffling. You say "material is only relevant in so far as it illustrates what the term means". I simply do not understand how that applies here. The subject is meta-ontology. The article discusses the analytic-synthetic distinction. Is that meta-ontology? Should it be in the article?

Quine and many others argue that the analytic-synthetic distinction is untenable. Fine. They also argue that this has a bearing upon Carnap's meta-ontology. That is debatable, inasmuch as Carnap's meta-ontology is about the internal-external distinction, and places the analytic-synthetic distinction entirely within the internal part of this division. Hence, at least from Carnap's viewpoint, the analytic-synthetic distinction is not about the internal-external division of Carnap's ontology.

So I ask you: isn't the above paragraph all about meta-ontology? Isn't it, therefore, part of the subject of meta-ontology? And so, shouldn't it be in the WP article on Meta-ontology? What is going on here? Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are baffled Brews, but the position is very simple, this is not the place for an extended discussion on something which is used to illustrate a topic. ----Snowded 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Snowded, you string words together that sound like English, but they aren't. Brews ohare (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming tendentious and unproductive. I think the bottom line here, Brews, is that you should not be trying to press through changes that don't have agreement on talk. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge: I am not 'trying to press through changes'. What I am trying to do is obtain something about how the proposed Quine material is not acceptable. Snowded makes only airy assertions unrelated to this material, mostly about my poor character as an editor. You could help a lot here by identifying anything objectionable in this material, so I can fix it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Or continuing to make personal attacks. Brews I think you either don't want to or can't understand the point. Its very similar to things you did not understand on Physics articles on 3 RfCs on Philosophy articles. Maybe its time to realise the problem is you not other editors. If you don't then I think the community will run out of patience again ----Snowded 08:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: There are certainly elements of a lack of productivity here. However, you just don't seem to think my confusion is genuine. I do not understand your criteria for what is relevant to Meta-ontology. My interpretation of your words as ordinary English seems to be different from yours.

To me, the article is open to discussion of various meta-ontological approaches (like Carnap's internal-external divisions, Quine's analytic-synthetic & so forth) and also to comparing and contrasting approaches. You apparently do not agree with this view, but I don't understand how your criteria lead to exclusion. Your wording "material is only relevant in so far as it illustrates what the term means" appears to me to include what I want to include.

Maybe (I'm guessing) 'illustrates' is intended to say "not every important discussion but only the bare bones needed to establish the meaning of the word 'meta-ontology'?" If that is your criterion, why would this article be restricted in this way? It's not usual. WP:WINAD.

So don't rant about 'my problems'. It isn't that I can't hear you; it is that you have not articulated clearly what you want to say. Brews ohare (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to explain why I'm having trouble with your exclusion of the Quine material. You haven't answered any of my questions. You have not critiqued the proposed material on Quine. You simply complain about me, and say nothing specific about the content. Brews ohare (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been very specific on content Brews but your refusal to listen means that sooner or later its necessary to comment on the behavioural issues. I will repeat the content point for the upteenth tim. An article on meta-ontology is one on meta-ontology, it is not the place for an extended elaboration of one debate used to illustrate that theme. Your questions which relate to the elaboration are not being answered because the connection is to the elaboration itself. Oh and I am not talking about 'bare bones' restrictions but one of 'sufficiency to purpose' and that is very usual. Otherwise if I actually 'rant' you can use the word, but given that I am not its a personal attack. Also I suspect your confusion is genuine and it is what has caused the problem here and on other articles, plus the problems on Physics. It takes a lot for the community to turn a one year ban to an indef. You need to learn from that. ----Snowded 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your longer response contains only one on-topic sentence in all that stuff about my failure to listen and to learn. It is this: "An article on meta-ontology is one on meta-ontology, it is not the place for an extended elaboration of one debate used to illustrate that theme."

You haven't attempted to explain how this general remark applies to the proposed material on Quine. So I'll try to formulate its application below.

The precept says firstly: “An article on meta-ontology is one on meta-ontology”. Now I don't think anyone doubts that.

That brings us to the second part of the precept: “it is not the place for an extended elaboration of one debate used to illustrate that theme .”I'll argue there are (at least) two debates, and only one is being included:

Here are the two debates about Quine in the literature viz a viz his meta-ontological comments on Carnap:

1. The question of Inwagen's paper, which deals with how satisfactorily Quine's meta-ontology applies to the analytic-synthetic distinction.
2. The question about how satisfactory is the internal-external distinction, the feature characterizing Carnap's meta-ontology, which is not the analytic-synthetic distinction. Quine botched this point according to the literature.

So Snowded, we have a peculiarly one-sided approach: the first debate that most authors agree has the least to do with Carnap's meta-ontology, and which has been mistakenly confounded with the real issue, is given much space; while the the second debate, which is the more pertinent, you object to including at all.

Personally I think both debates should be present, and their differences pointed out. Both debates are discussed widely in the literature. Sources have been provided.

So, Snowded, what is the basis for including one debate and not the other? Can you answer this question by comment directed specifically at the proposed material on Quine, rather than easy generalities that seem to be simply an expression of personal preferences? Brews ohare (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

How many threads are you going to open? See response to section below ----Snowded 04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's basis for refusal: Part 1

Snowded says he has refused the proposed material on Quine because:

You can report what the authors who use meta-ontology say about the debate in so far as it relates to an understanding of that word. you can not develop an article based on your own interpretation (selection of primary sources) of that debate. Nothing to do with easy generalities or personal preference, other than possibly your personal preference for stringing together quotes from primary sources in contravention of wikipedia policy (as recently clarified for you on the reliable sources notice board) ----Snowded 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Assuming the reason for your rejection of the proposed material is actually what you say here, the issue is that this material is seen by you as Brews' interpretation, not my own creation, but my own interpretation by virtue of my having selected particular primary sources. So let's look at the first part of the rejected material, which states:

A major part of Quine's critique of Carnap is his work Two Dogmas of Empiricism, which attacks the analytic/synthetic division of statements raised by Carnap in his book on logic: Meaning and Necessity. In regard to Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Frank Ryan concludes his article on the analytic–synthetic distinction:

Quine's pragmatic challenge to the analytic-synthetic distinction has won many sympathizers, including Nelson Goodman, Morton White, and Hilary Putnam. Critics, however, maintain that some notion of analyticity is indispensable to any coherent account of either formal systems or our everyday use of language. H.P. Grice and P.F. Strawson, for example, contend that analyticity, necessity, and cognitive synonymy constitute an internally coherent family of terms, which Quine takes out of context in appealing to extensional criteria such as semantic reference. Others follow Wittgenstein in restricting analyticity to pure logical tautology, noting that Quine himself does not contest logical truths or stipulations. Even such counterproposals, however, concede a severe curtailment of the distinction, and in the wake of challenges from pragmatism it is hard to envision the analytic and the synthetic ever again enthroned in resplendent isolation.

— Frank X. Ryan, "Analytic: Analytic/Synthetic" in American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia

Now you left the long Ryan quote in place, but removed the prolegomena. Now it is easily verifiable that Quine's critique in Two Dogmas of Empiricism is a critique of Carnap's Meaning and Truth and is the basis of Inwagen's paper Meta-ontology. These works are already cited in the article, and links to them are provided. I can, of course, footnote them again here, if you wish.

I find it improbable that you are unaware of these facts and these works and their content, or that you really believe that these introductory words forming the prolegomena is in any way 'my interpretation'. Your reasons for rejection therefore do not apply here, to this part of the proposed insertion about Quine.

Perhaps, like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, you will switch now to some other objection. Failing some reasonable argument, I suggest this prolegomena be returned to the article. Brews ohare (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My original reason, as stated my me, stands Brews ----Snowded 04:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I guess you applied the WP:TLDR approach to my serious effort to allow a simple non-answer that required no thought. Your original reason not only does not stand, you are applying it in a situation where it is simply absurd. Read the discussion, and respond to the discussion. Make an effort, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No Brews, I have responded before and you are not happy with the response Live with it. Just as on the RfC on Philosophy you seem to think that if anyone disagrees with you the solution is lengthly statements and restatements of your original argument. I've had enough of dealing with the same arguments time and time and time again. You have had reasonable arguments in response. The material should not be placed in the article unless you can get a consensus of other editors . At the moment you don't have that, this or most other places for that matter. Futher repitition will simply receive a See previous response note ----Snowded 05:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Snowded, it is not disagreement that makes me unhappy - disagreement is an opportunity to improve a contribution. It is deliberate obstructionism in the form of non-specific vague general objections that are not tied to the text under criticism and include nothing specific for improvement. And of course, sermons about my being deaf, dumb, and blind. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

See comment in section below Brews and I see you are into personal attacks again ----Snowded 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I gather that pointing out your comments about myself is a personal attack upon you, Snowded. Hey. Why not? Brews ohare (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's basis for refusal: Part 2

Snowded says he has refused the proposed material on Quine because:

You can report what the authors who use meta-ontology say about the debate in so far as it relates to an understanding of that word. you can not develop an article based on your own interpretation (selection of primary sources) of that debate. Nothing to do with easy generalities or personal preference, other than possibly your personal preference for stringing together quotes from primary sources in contravention of wikipedia policy (as recently clarified for you on the reliable sources notice board) ----Snowded 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Assuming the reason for your rejection of the proposed material is actually what you say here, the issue is that this material is seen by you as Brews' interpretation, not my own creation, but my own interpretation by virtue of my having selected particular primary sources. So let's look at the second part of the rejected material, which states:

However, the analytic/synthetic distinction and the internal/external distinction are separate matters. As pointed out by Bird: "Now it is one thing to claim that the analytic/synthetic distinction can be used to support the external/internal distinction, and another to claim that the contrasts are effectively identical. Yet it is the stronger claim which Quine also indicates..." Accordingly, Quine's analysis of the analytic/synthetic distinction is not directly concerned with that part of Carnap's meta-ontology that rests on the internal/external distinction.

1. Stephen Yablo (1998). "Does ontology rest upon a mistake?" (PDF). Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 72: 229–261.
2. M Allspector-Kelly (2001). "On Quine on Carnap on Ontology" (PDF). Philosophical Studies. 102: 93–122.
3. Graham H. Bird (2003). "Carnap's internal and external questions". In Thomas Bonk, ed (ed.). Language, Truth and Knowledge: Contributions to the Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Springer. p. 107. ISBN 1402012063. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

In this material, there is nothing originated by myself, as I think you would allow, but I don't think that is what you mean by my presenting 'my personal interpretation'. I think you are saying that these statements, while accurately portraying these three authors' views of the matter, may be a parochial view.

I can, of course, add to the list of authors holding the same view, namely that the analytic/synthetic division is distinct from the internal/external division, for example, Thomasson, Hirsch, Eklund. I'll point out that you have accepted already Thomasson as an adequate source all by herself for the Carnap paragraph preceding this one on Quine.

However, if your problem with this material is that it may be parochial, the obvious way to avoid this problem is (i) to state the obvious, that it is the view of some, but not necessarily all, and (ii) to present whatever arguments can be found that state the opposite view, and cite them. Quine himself does not fall under this heading, because his error was to dismiss the internal/external distinction as a trivial matter, leaving only the analytic/synthetic distinction to worry about.

Snowded: How would such an additional disclaimer suit you as a solution to allowing this material?

I refer you to my statement above. As ever you quote it then misinterpret or restate it in incomplete form You are seeking to use this article as a coatrack for material that is not directly relevant ----Snowded 05:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Very conciliatory - I offer a solution to your objection, and you change the objection. It is a pattern with you. The objective is exclude new material with one objection after another, so this article remains a stub instead of a full article, all with the dying aim of shoring up your merge proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly one source of the general contention on this page might be from a disagreement about whether the material should be presented as a dispute between philosophers, or just presented. In that regard, it might be better to present the material without philosopher's names in the section headings (e.g. "Carnap and Quine" and "Quine's approach"), but with just topics in the section headings (e.g. "Linguistic frameworks" and "Deflationism"). (Just a brief interjection from me and I'll leave it at that.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Thanks. Any concrete proposal is better than vague assaults. We'll see if Snowded endorses your approach. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My objection hasn't changed Brews it has been very consistent. Material here has to explain the term meta-ontology, it should not be an extended discussion of one dispute around which some people use the term. From that perspective it doesn't matter if the names are used or not, the material needs to relate to the subject of the article. ----Snowded 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I think Snowded's answer to your suggestion is not complicated: "NO!!" Brews ohare (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Inconsistency is the last adjective I'd apply to you. Unresponsive? Unhelpful? Unfocussed? Very consistent. Brews ohare (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have modified the discussion of the Quine-Carnap differences to clarify that there are two major differences: the debate over the internal-external distinction and the debate over the analytic-synthetic distinction. The literature is very clear about this distinction, and sources have been provided. Of course, the matter could be explained more carefully, as suggested here, but Snowded is adamant in his opposition, although his reasons are vague. Brews ohare (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's reasons are precise - this article is already over extended. You are also putting the "two major differences" again which was previous rejected. ----Snowded 16:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Wake up! The separate matters of the analytic-synthetic distinction and the internal-external distinction are made clear in separate WP articles, in the original sources by Quine and Carnap, and in later discussions by Thomasson, Price, Eklund, Hirsch, Bird and who knows how many other sources linked on this Talk page and in various reverted material. To oppose a correct statement of the issues in favor of a completely wrong description on the basis of brevity is nuts, as you would agree, so I conclude only that you have not fully absorbed what is going on here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As I remember it Brews you had the same argument with Bob and its not sourced per se. in the meta-ontology references Nor is it remotely clear that it is needed here. You are constantly seeking to expand articles beyond their natural limits and adding material that belongs on other articles. I will check it later but if I can't see anything new from when you last attempted to insert similar material it will be reverted. I will also try and find the time to cut the material back from an extended discussion of what is only an example of the article's subject. Try and stop the constant comments on editors by the way, it really has little effect ----Snowded 17:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You mis-remember. It is obvious that these changes are needed here. Why not look at the issue and the sources presented instead of relying on vague recollections about hazily recalled events? Brews ohare (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Brews, in my experience many things are obvious to you that represent failure to follow policy for others. As I say above I will double check but you have acquired another bad habit recently of reverting anyone who disagrees you on the grounds they have not understood you. Regrettably, most of the time they have. ----Snowded 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your generalizations as to my actions and motivations are your own and stem from problems that attribute to you as well as myself. They are irrelevant here. I look forward to your 'double' check. Look at the sources particularly with a view to establishing that there are two issues here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I reviewed it and per my previous comment this is needless expansion of the material with stuff that is not relevant to explaining the article subject - it belongs on other articles if anything. I also removed more material which simply elaborated the Q-C debate which again belongs elsewhere unless it is used to specifically illustrate the subject's topic ----Snowded 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: All you have provided here is your own unsubstantiated opinion that this material is needless. I have pointed out that it corrects an erroneous version of the Carnap-Quine differences and supported that remark with half a dozen sources. You are simply being obstructive and have not responded in any way to reasonable commentary. Brews ohare (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are just continuing to argue your perspective and not listening Brews. I disagree with the extensions get your mind around it. Given you are not agreeable I have reverted to the last stable version. I have added two tags which illustrate my concerns which are further described above. When you are ready to discuss them rather than just assert that your content is right let me know ----Snowded 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: There are two aspects being discussed by published philosophers regarding Carnap's views: they are the internal-external distinction proposed in Carnap's Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology (which does not mention the analytic-synthetic distinction) and the analytic-synthetic distinction proposed in Carnap's Meaning and Necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic (which does not mention the internal-external distinction). Do you agree that there are in fact these two issues?

Assuming you agree, as indeed there is no choice about this and the question is largely rhetorical, do you agree that these two matters are discussed as separate issues in on-going philosophical publications? I refer to Thomasson, Eklund , Price, Bird, Hirsch, ...?

Again assuming you agree, as again there is no choice about this and the question is largely rhetorical, do you think the article Meta-ontology adequately presents both aspects? Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming your answer is "Yes! It does indeed discuss these matters adequately." how do you support that opinion of yours? I'll offer a few possible answers, none of which I find reasonable: (i) Yes the two aspects exist, but only one of them, the analytic-synthetic distinction, is meta-ontology. (ii) Yes the two aspects exist, but only one of them, the analytic-synthetic distinction, is important enough to warrant inclusion. (iii) Yes the two aspects exist, but the 'See-also' link to the internal-external distinction is a sufficient indication to the reader. I provide you with a check-list to make it easy for you to articulate your reasons, which so far has been rendered unavailable to you, possibly because you are easily distracted by generalities and a penchant for assessing my behavior instead of content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about meta-ontology not about the two distinctions you mention. Those are already covered elsewhere in wikipedia and material from contemporary debates should be part of the articles on internal-external distinction and analytic-synthetic distinction. The Carnap sections in this article are already a coat rack and there is no justification in making that problem worse. Your final sentence contradicts itself; if you want to focus on content stop making trivial statements about the behaviour of other editors----Snowded 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You say that for Meta-ontology, in its role as an article strictly about 'meta-ontology', a discussion of the two different aspects of Carnap's meta-ontology is irrelevant and is covered elsewhere. But one of these aspects, the analytic-synthetic distinction is discussed at length in Meta-ontology, while the other, the internal-external distinction is neglected. Why do you apply your argument only to exclude one of the two aspects? Why is one aspect of 'meta-ontology' to be distinguished as interesting, and the other aspect not? Brews ohare (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

See multiple previous replies ----Snowded 18:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I take this non-answer as evasive, especially as no indication is given where you have already responded. In fact you have not, and your position is unsupported and unsupportable. Brews ohare (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your unsupported and unsupportable failure to understand positions that disagree with you, and the requirement for constant repetition is evasive and intransigent . ----Snowded 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your situation exactly, Snowded. You have chosen awkwardly to include one aspect of Carnap's meta-ontology, the analytic-synthetic distinction, but not another, the internal-external distinction. Don't worry about it - things like this happen. Just fix it. Brews ohare (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I did Brews, but then you reverted ----Snowded 21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your revisions attempted only to avoid the appearance of including only the analytic-synthetic distinction but not the internal-external distinction, but made no effort to present both equally. For example, referring to "Iwagen's critique of Quine's analysis of Carnap", rather than the more precise "Inwagen's critique of Quine's analysis of Carnap's analytic-synthetic distinction". These little word games don't improve the article, and simply burying this matter doesn't 'fix' the problem.

It appears that your aim is to keep Meta-ontology a stub by forcing all discussion of meta-ontology to a minimum, regardless of any disservice to the reader and to WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for the article to include all and any material that explains the use of the term. However that does not mean extended discussion of subjects covered elsewhere, especially when not all of those involved of those discussions would use or recognise the validity of the term. The article is too much of a coat rack and needs to be made relevant. Please stop making statements about other editors motivation, you inevitably get it wrong. Now when you are prepared to discuss the legitimate range of this article we might make progress. If you continue to insist on reinserting material rejected and adding whole wardrobes of coatracks then we are just going to end up with a stalemate. ----Snowded 19:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: There is no WP requirement that an article on meta-ontology should be restricted to material that "explains the use of the term". Where does that idea come from? The article is about the subject of meta-ontology, not about the use of the term. That includes examples of meta-ontology, and in particular, careful discussion of the most famous of all meta-ontological arguments — the Quine-Carnap debates.

Not policy. Brews ohare (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, given your definition here you could simply replicate and extend the ontology article. Come to think of it, given the rejection of your particular take on Philosophy that may even be your intention. Sorry Brews my next set of edits will be to make another attempt to reduce the content to relevant material. As long as you revert those and/or attempt to extend the article it will simply be stalemate. You should have tried to work with Bob a little harder. ----Snowded 05:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: If the problem is duplication to excess, point out the overlap and let's work on it. I think the problem is not that - it is an erroneous presentation of Carnap's meta-ontology. The material in analytic-synthetic distinction and internal-external distinction can be relied upon to keep the presentation here brief, but it should not be ignored or distorted in Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the article has too much on that already Brews, my edit avoided any possible error but reduced the content a bit (ie going in the right direction). I do not agree with adding extended discussion at this level of detail so I will revert any expansion. Please STOP EDIT WARRING, and gain agreement here for any future edit. I am working on a proposal as to how this page can move forward but you will have to wait a day or so for that as I am teaching most of this week. There is a way forward but you are going to have to accept the coat rack point, if you can't do that then its going to be stalemate at best ----Snowded 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's biased revisions

In this action Snowded has changed the description in the lead paragraph to claim that it was Quine's analysis of Carnap's internal-external distinction that led to his development of the techniques involved in ontological commitment and to the essay by Inwagen that made the term 'meta-ontology' more popular. This is untrue, as a look at Quine's Two dogmas paper and Inwagen's Meta-ontology show immediately. The pertinent issue is Carnap's analytic-synthetic distinction. That matter has been pointed out to Snowded repeatedly, and yet he flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary to insist upon this wrong identification.

In his edit Snowded also removes the See-also link to the article Internal–external distinction but retains the link to Analytic-synthetic distinction, a bias that has no basis as both aspects are important and much discussed in the philosophical literature, including in particular Thomasson, Eklund, Price, Bird, Hirsch, Putnam and other authors whose work is linked on this Talk page and in reverted material once found in Meta-ontology before Snowded got to work. Brews ohare (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have again corrected these mistakes. Brews ohare (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pushing the edge of WP:AGF with that heading Brews. As it happens I restored the previous stable version which had words originally drafted by you. I did that on the grounds that the article is in large part a coatrack and you were making it worse not better. You seem to have a major ownership issue with any editor here (or elsewhere) who disagrees with any of your various attempts at synthesis or loose collections of original quotations based on your own reading of limited sources. I have not reverted the minor change you made necessary, but the huge expansion of material is not accepted. If you want to remove the silly accusations that might help you down stream. For the moment try, please try, to understand that the objection is not necessarily to the content of your multiple additions but to the relevance to the article subject. ----Snowded 05:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Although very technically speaking your two changes 'restored a previous stable version', your edit makes only the two inadvisable corrections mentioned here. From Talk-page discussion of your prior attempts to enforce these changes, you know that one of these changes is wrong, and the other ill-advised, but made them anyway. This action is consistent with your policy evidenced over and over again on this Talk page directed toward eliminating sensible treatment of the Internal–external distinction in Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out further that your edit is a direct reversion of my preceding two edits instating these changes and overriding my edit comments: Let's avoid introducing historical inaccuracy for polemical purposes and Let's include both of Carnap's distinctions in See..also; not just one. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No Brews, the article is already over extended beyone its subject. And stop casting aspersions, if you want to dig yourself a second wikipedia grave, to go with your physics one then I can't stop you but I advise against it. The issue is not the content one you are arguing, but the appropriateness of the content to this article ----Snowded 16:54, 25 June 20

The first of your two changes introduced an error; the second introduced bias. Corrections are entirely appropriate. Neither is an extension of the article. Brews ohare (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Section titled: Quine's approach

This section of meta-ontology is partly misreferenced. The second sentence says:

"Quine argued that there is no sharp differentiation between internal and external questions, and their separation in Carnap's sense is untenable.

Quine - Two dogmas of empiricism

Quine - On what there is

Quine - On Carnap's views of ontology

The statement is accurate, but as pointed out in internal-external distinction the first two citations, & are incorrect, and instead, along with , Quine's Word and Object should be cited. References and pertain to the analytic-synthetic distinction.

I've fixed these references as mentioned above. Brews ohare (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As a general article on meta-ontology, this section of meta-ontology should supplement the separate topics described individually in more detail in analytic-synthetic distinction and internal-external distinction with an overview placing the two aspects in proper perspective relative to one another, providing a proper introduction to the separate articles.

In particular, it might explain how Quine misunderstood the relation between the two issues, leading to a long-standing confounding of their roles and of the arguments involved that has since been clarified by Price, Bird, Thomasson, Allspector-Kelly, Yablo, Eklund, Hirsch, Putnam and others. Brews ohare (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Quine-Carnap debate and the two distinctions were issues in philosophy before anyone thought to use the term meta-ontology. They are subjects in their own right. This article is about meta-ontology and the interest is how authors use the term in contrast with those who just talk about ontology. In that respect If there is s substantive issue around different treatments it might be notable. Otherwise its not ----Snowded 16:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I'd agree that there is a minor point to address in the discussion between those who use the term 'meta-ontology' and those who do not. However, that topic is possibly more an historical question related to how recently this term has come into use. The main topic of Meta-ontology is, of course, that portion of Ontology now carved out and designated by the term 'meta-ontology', and has little to do with an appraisal of who uses the term and who prefers to leave it lumped under the general auspices of ontology in the large. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Digression on acceptance of the term 'meta-ontology'

Is it? As far as I remember the idea that there is a portion of Ontology now designed meta-ontology is by no means universal. Its not even mentioned as a subject in many of the reference works. Unless and until something changes in that the use is confined to a limited number of authors within one tradition within Philosophy. You can't assume their position by using the article to advance it. ----Snowded 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It is a non-issue. If some people prefer to talk of 'cattle' and others prefer to break it up into 'beef cattle', 'dairy cattle', etc. so what? That doesn't change the adopted meaning of the sub-field of 'meta-ontology' and does not imply some striking revelation about 'ontology'. Its just a classification of topics, like an 'in-box' and an 'out-box' separates the 'mail'. Apparently some feel that this division is not useful, like yourself, and others think it is a useful subdivision, like Hofweber. We don't need unanimity on the utility of a subdivision to discuss the subject area as it is defined by those who use the term. Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What you are really trying to do here, Snowded, is to raise the subject of WP:Notability, which is the point of your merge proposal on this page. I think the subject of 'meta-ontology' has plenty of activity and it is already decided that it is notable enough to warrant its own article. If you really want to introduce a deletion proposal, then do so. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Then show me a reference Brews, something that supports your view of the term as an established sub-division. At the moment all we have is your conclusion drawn from use of the term by some authors within one part of one tradition in the field. Your Hofweber reference contradicts your position by the way, a similar misunderstanding as evidenced in your speculation as to the motives of other editors. ----Snowded 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Snowded - go ahead and propose deletion. There is no point in arguing with you in this thread. As for Hofweber, it is you who misread him:

"To figure this out is the task of meta-ontology, which strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed. Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. Many of the philosophically most fundamental questions about ontology really are meta-ontological questions."

— Thomas Hofweber, Logic and Ontology: Different conceptions of ontology

Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So much for my 'misunderstanding' and 'speculation", eh? Brews ohare (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the article Brews you will see he admits the use is not universal but he finds it useful. No one is contesting its use by some philosophers, its your assumption that it is an established sub-division which is the issue. My original comment stands, including the observation that you generally fail to bother to read what does not agree with your then assumed position. Agree there is no point in arguing with you on this, but until you are prepared to engage there will be no progress ----Snowded 20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made no claims about how 'established' the terminology is. Like Hofweber, utility is enough for me. And it is found useful by a great many authors. Propose deletion or drop the subject - it is a non-issue otherwise. Brews ohare (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to add material Brews, find supporting references or give up on it ----Snowded 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of violating the Prime directive, it seems like meta-ontology is a term that is used enough by reliable sources to make it a valid and descriptive title for this article. If there is any reliable source that has questioned the appropriateness of using the term, it might be helpful to come forward with the link for this discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not in question Bob. It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack. Hofweber suggests that seeing meta-ontology as one of the divisions of ontology would be helpful, but he also admits that this is not universal by any means. It also doesn't appear as such a division in most of the encyclopaedias, directories etc. So it has not really come on the radar other than within a subset of those who focus on linguistics and logic. That means that subsuming wider philosophical issues under its banner is problematic. What we need is something which explains how the term is used, makes it clear where it is used and references other articles as appropriate. ----Snowded 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack." — I looked up what "coatrack" means in Misplaced Pages at WP:Coatrack and found,

"A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."

I wouldn't call this a coatrack article since it legitimately discusses the subject of meta-ontology. I personally did a major edit of a section "Linguistic frameworks" which you seemed to approve. It seems that your objection has to do with adding material that is not sufficiently related to the subject of meta-ontology, rather than the whole article being just a coatrack per the Misplaced Pages definition of coatrack article. However, objecting that proposed material is not sufficiently related to the topic of the article is a legitimate objection and it seems that the burden for giving evidence that it is sufficiently related is on the editor who is proposing the addition. Since that issue probably won't be settled between the two of you, an RfC might be useful. If you do have an RfC, try to distill the dispute to the simplest form regarding just one specific and limited amount of material, so that potential commenters aren't discouraged from commenting because of TL;DR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, you proposed what seemed like a reasonable compromise. As we know it was rejected. There comes a time when legitimate explanation goes too far and qualifies as a coatrack. If you read Brews comment he considered meta-ontology to be the same thing as ontology so he is pursuing the line of argument he first made on Philosophy and which was rejected there. I've run out of patience with this over multiple articles, including his setting up new articles with material rejected elsewhere. If someone whats to raise a fifth RfC around Brews edits fine. I suspect he is likely to get sanctioned before much happens there however. ----Snowded 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: The problem here is that there are no editors on WP with strong interest in the subject. Most philosophy articles were written in 2006-2007 and have only been tweaked ever since because there just aren't editors around that have any desire for more extensive engagement. That leaves Snowded as the lone voice to deal with. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again not true Brews. There are a small number of us who work on these articles. When you have got engagement through an RfC you never been backed in your views. Your aggressive attitude to editors who disagreed with you in those RfCs further discourages engagement. Look at the way you handled Bob's attempt to help. Few want to engage in extended and lengthy discussions that are appropriate with under graduate students exploring a subject, but not with editing an encyclopaedia ----Snowded 04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You continue to state over and over that the work described by those that do use the term 'meta-ontology' must be proven notable or dropped. You continue to suggest it is a term used only by some insignificant minority whose opinions are best left out of WP.

You have proposed on this Talk page that the whole subject be reduced to a mention in the article Ontology. That is your view. That is the basis for all your objections. It has gone nowhere. So put this view of insignificance aside, and focus instead on making this the most complete and authoritative article on meta-ontology available on the web, whatever its importance in the world of ontology. Making the article Meta-ontology all that it can be is not slap in the face for ontology or for WP or for you. It's just an article on a facet of ontology that has the attention of Price, Bird, Thomasson, Allspector-Kelly, Yablo, Eklund, Hirsch, Putnam and others. Brews ohare (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The merge proposal has three for and two against Brews. Given its not overwealming I haven't pressed it. Your trotting out the same references just makes my point. Yes the term is used no question about that. However it is not established as a subset within the field as a whole and the whole "meta" thing is a characteristic of one school of thought anyway. Even if it was so established then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack. Any article on an area of philosophy summarises the domains concerns, it does not elaborate the debates with multiple quotations. That material (without the excessive quotation and synthesis you are prone to) belongs in specific articles. Please address the points made by other editors rather than your straw man assumptions as to their motivations ----Snowded 06:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, "even if it was so established then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack." Snowded, you've already got a Plan B ready in case the blockade of Plan A fails. As for this Plan B, a general article, like Philosophy say, introduces pages on subtopics, and so covers some of the same ground. However, it is also supposed to provide perspective on how these topics relate to each other and to the main topic. Likewise, Meta-ontology needs to address the various facets discussed in analytic-synthetic distinction and internal-external distinction among others so as to put the whole together in relation to its parts. That is not coatracking. It's doing its job.

"A WP:Coatrackarticle is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."

There is no way that any of the proposed additions to Meta-ontology fit this description. It is alarming that you are so opposed to this article that you are already arranging your second line of obstruction. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryle, Price and Thomasson

In this edit Snowded has removed the discussion of "what we mean when we ask 'What is ?' described by Ryle, Price, and Thomasson, along with the references to their work. There can be no doubt that this topic is the very definition of 'meta-ontology'. Nonetheless, Snowded's in-line justification for removal is that this material is selective addition of Ryle, per previous talk page comments this is nothing to do with explaining the subject of the article. In fact, there has been no discussion of Ryle on this Talk page to date, and Price has discussed Ryle at length. His introduction of two meanings for exist is called by Price 'use' and 'mention' and this classification is explicitly supported in Thomasson's work, which refers to Price in this connection.

I have restored a slightly modified version of this material. Brews ohare (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It might need pointing out again that Inwagen defined 'meta-ontology' as discussion of the question of what one means by "what is ?" Perhaps I need to point out that if one discusses the meaning and usage of 'exists', one is questioning the meaning of the question "What is ?". It might also be pointed out that this question is the crux of quantifier variance. We can leave to another occasion the question of whether President Clinton was interested in meta-ontology when he said the answers to some questions about himself "depend upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why chose Ryle? More or less every modern philosopher and some not so modern have discussed this issue. You obviously intend to keep adding your own summary of philosophers (as you did with Wittgenstein) and you are being obdurate in not recognising that the opposition is to th Ryle per se, but to your addition of coatrack material. I suggest for your own sake you self-revert until the wider issues is resolved. If you don't I will ----Snowded 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Merged to Ontology

Sections of this article have been merged to 'Ontology' in a subsection of that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.202.78 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Undone part re this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Interested in how you think we can get the article to some semblance of relevance Bob. There is a lot of coatrack stuff there. At the end of the day I don't think that we have more than 2/3 paragraphs. Happy to ride with that as a short article, but not with something that ends up as a general discussion of what a few philosophers think is a sub-division of Ontology ----Snowded 22:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what problems you're seeing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosphers, some of whom simply use the term a few of whom assert it is a useful sub-division of Ontology. It follows that material should illustrate the use of the term, but should not be an extended essay on the subject. That belongs in ontology (which is established as a term, exists in directories etc.). Thus most of the discussion of the Q-C debate should therefore be reduced to a few sentences for example. I am suggesting we work to do something like that, or possibly open the RfC again on the merge ----Snowded 04:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re "meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosophers" — Since I don't know of any reliable source that agrees with or disputes your claim, I can't really discuss that with you.
• Re "essay", I thought that was a term in Misplaced Pages that is used for a page that contains editors' own ideas, rather than an article that is based on reliable sources.
• I think the article should be organized in terms of ideas, rather than people such as Carnap and Quine. That's one reason that I titled a section I worked on "Linguistic frameworks", rather than Carnap. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It not used as a term in any of the major directories and one of the sources admits its use is controversial. Essay like is nothing to do with sources there or not, its style. I'm open to adding some sections on subjects with references where people are talking about meta-ontology. For the moment I have simplified it and removed the tags. Hopefully we can build up from there in a more sensible manner ----Snowded 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Ryan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class metaphysics articles
• Low-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles