Talk:Philosophy of mind: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:39, 26 July 2018 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,348 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Philosophy of mind/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:16, 17 August 2018 edit undo129.96.86.27 (talk) →Need to take care when making claims of consensus: new sectionNext edit →
Line 86:		Line 86:

	Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone take a look at the "External links" section for possible article integrating or trimming? 10 links give rise to concerns of ]. ] (]) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)		Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone take a look at the "External links" section for possible article integrating or trimming? 10 links give rise to concerns of ]. ] (]) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

			== Need to take care when making claims of consensus ==

			It might be true that most philosophers of mind adhere to physicalism, but the article presents no evidence of such a consensus. As such, I have edited in the need for a citation.

			I would also err caution on making such claims in topics concerning philosophy, as a philosophical consensus is less likely to indicate the truth of a matter. Unlike science (modern natural philosophy), most branches of philosophy do not adhere to a systematic set of methods.

			There's also the issue of truth by consensus; as mentioned above, a scientific consensus (a consensus of modern natural philosophy) is qualitatively different from a consensus in any other given branch of philosophy.

			Articles dealing with more metaphysical-esque topics should be careful when making claims that border on consensus so as not to mislead a lay reader into thinking that one position (e.g. physicalism) is inherently more correct, or likely to be correct than another (e.g. dualism). Even subtle suggestions in this direction flies in the face of the very spirit of philosophy, which is that we should not make our conclusions based on anything but the argumentative content of ones propositions. This includes deciding what we think about a topic by basing our conclusions on the positions held by experts.

Revision as of 01:16, 17 August 2018

Skip to table of contents

Philosophy of mind is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 12, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 17, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 27, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 28, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Daily page views

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philosophy of mind article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Mind Top‑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

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Neuroscience Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Transhumanism Mid‑importance

Philosophy of mind' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

To Do List:

edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add ] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Top‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philosophy of mind article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philosophy of mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth 22:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophy of mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304105534/http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block5/Medicus_engl_Cover.pdf to http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block5/Medicus_engl_Cover.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth 22:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Identity Theory criticisms unfounded

"Despite its initial plausibility, the identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability, first formulated by Hilary Putnam." This section has a ton of weasel words and the citations do not support the statements made. Footnote 27 is not a source that supports the sentence "identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability"; it is a reference to Hilary Putnam's paper which attempts to dispute identity theory and—by any rational account—fails. It is not a challenge at all to identity theory, let along a "strong" one. A diverse array of organisms can all feel pain and all have different brains, there's no issue with that. A proponent of Identity theory would just say that each of those experiences would be slightly different, in the same way that all humans will have slightly different experiences of pain because we ourselves don't have exactly the same physical brains. Footnote 27 is also used at the end of the sentence "The identity theory is thus empirically unfounded." Again, the linked source does not say that.

External links

Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone take a look at the "External links" section for possible article integrating or trimming? 10 links give rise to concerns of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Need to take care when making claims of consensus

It might be true that most philosophers of mind adhere to physicalism, but the article presents no evidence of such a consensus. As such, I have edited in the need for a citation.

I would also err caution on making such claims in topics concerning philosophy, as a philosophical consensus is less likely to indicate the truth of a matter. Unlike science (modern natural philosophy), most branches of philosophy do not adhere to a systematic set of methods.

There's also the issue of truth by consensus; as mentioned above, a scientific consensus (a consensus of modern natural philosophy) is qualitatively different from a consensus in any other given branch of philosophy.

Articles dealing with more metaphysical-esque topics should be careful when making claims that border on consensus so as not to mislead a lay reader into thinking that one position (e.g. physicalism) is inherently more correct, or likely to be correct than another (e.g. dualism). Even subtle suggestions in this direction flies in the face of the very spirit of philosophy, which is that we should not make our conclusions based on anything but the argumentative content of ones propositions. This includes deciding what we think about a topic by basing our conclusions on the positions held by experts.

Categories: