Talk:Parallelism (philosophy)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Philosophy of mind

This redirect was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 2010-01-26. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources.

Proposed deletion[edit]

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

You can't delete it yourself. You have to nominate it on WP:AFD. Why do you want to delete the whole article though? The first section, though small, seems fine. -Seth Mahoney 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Seth - this is a notable theory, and an article on it seems appropriate. Anarchia 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Anarchia, Parallelism is at the least a significant view in the history of philosophy. Furthermore, the article does not belong in the pseudoscience category, because it is an assumption or a priori premise and not given a posteriori. To my knowledge it does not comply with Karl Popper's definition of pseudoscience, which requires that the presentation of the subject makes claim to science. I have yet to come across a (pseduo)scientific justification of parallelism. Some arguments for parallelism may explain away scientifically established facts, however, this is not the same as making the claim: "this is science". Rather, pro-parallelism arguments argue the opposite, which is a strong demarcation from science - and thus pseudoscience. Ostracon (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to be able to learn on my own time about topics you don't get to spend much, if any, time on in school. I believe philosophy in general is a good enough example of what I wish I could further my understanding of, due to my yearning for a heightened sense of self, thus allowing me to be able to have a far deeper understanding of the nature of others. Even though I am unfashionably late to this discussion, I am glad I can partake in this learning experience with a more in-depth position. Anywho, I too wish for this article to stay the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylano (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]