| Revision as of 15:28, 18 August 2020 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,962 edits talk cleanup and remove template that is not sized to fit screen← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 18 August 2020 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,962 edits →FA assessment status after 10 years: noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Misplaced Pages over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. ] (]) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC) | The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Misplaced Pages over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. ] (]) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC) | ||
| : Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of ], cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. ] (]) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | : Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of ], cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. ] (]) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :: Any one can submit the review; the instructions are at ]. ] (]) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:49, 18 August 2020
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.86.27 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could this sort of consensus be expressed through a citation to a work that asserted something like this? Along the lines of 'according to...<physicalism consensus>.' Kraaj 00:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPUAlbany (talk • contribs)
FA assessment status after 10 years
The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Misplaced Pages over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. CodexJustin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of summary style, cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Any one can submit the review; the instructions are at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Philosophy articles
- Top-importance Philosophy articles
- FA-Class philosophy of mind articles
- Top-importance philosophy of mind articles
- Philosophy of mind task force articles
- FA-Class neuroscience articles
- Top-importance neuroscience articles
- FA-Class Transhumanism articles
- Mid-importance Transhumanism articles
- FA-Class psychology articles
- Top-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles