Talk:Generalization

Move cartography part
I suggest we move the part about cartography to Cartographic generalization. --Dittaeva 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Supermagle 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we move to Generalization (Cartography) and make a disambiguation page. --DesolateReality 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

generality
Ok, I need a page for "generality" among species - the assumption that research on pigeons is applicable to humans for example. This page doesn't do it even though it redirects from "generality" ?!

--florkle 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello florkle, you might have better results if you post a question to the Reference desk. dr.ef.tymac 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article:

The term "generalization" has a meaning in logic; where does the above come from? --LMS


 * This comes from mathematics. Reading the article for definition, I guess this perhaps should really be called genus. What is the meaning of the term "generalization" in logic? --Seb


 * All generalizations are false ;) --Magnus Manske


 * There's not enough context for this article. Mintguy 21:50 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask if there should be some mention of 'strict' and 'normal' generalisations in the very self-same way that people include such distinctions in regards to subsets, etc.. (ie: whether or not A is a subset or superset of B). This may seem facetious (I do maths - sorry) but I think it's important - should A be allowed to be a generalisation of itself? I know in everyday usage this is not (usually?) the case - but I think the devil's in the detail, so best to make the distinction clear.

Re the "Confusing" note
We should always bear in mind that we are writing an encyclopaedia here and what we are writing should be clear for the uninitiated who will not know what the first section of this article is all about. You are not addressing your peers here necessarily, but people who will probably not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Please bear this in mind, at least please make it clear which branch of science you are referring to - logic, mathematics, linguistics?. Dieter Simon 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Dieter Simon 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

intro para ;; promote change to disambiguation or see also ;; note similarity to generic
2006-10-16 Added intro paragraph to help with the confusion indication.

This article, when developed further, will almost certainly call for disambiguation. It is recommended that the intro paragraph give a basic, layman-friendly introduction, with perhaps a short paragraph giving an example, and the remainder of the article pointing to already-existing and yet-to-be-created articles in mathematics, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, and whatever other specific contexts.

Generalization is a fundamental component of human reasoning and cognition. It is difficult to see how this article could develop as an independent entity and still remain accessible and clear. drefty.mac 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Aim of the Article?
Because generalizations form part of informal logic often used in speeches and debates. My question is: Why is cartographic generalization of geo-spatial data part of this article? Surely, language and geography are to unrelated topics, therefore you can rather link out the cartographic generalizations while sticking purely to the language aspect of the subject?

In addition I find the explanation of a generalization in this article rather complex. For me a generalization is:

SAMPLE A HAS CHARACTERISTIC X THEREFORE POPULATION OF A's HAS CHARACTERISTIC X

e.g The blonds in my school are stupid, therefore all blonds are stupid

After this you could go into a discussion about sample representativity and sufficiency that make a generalization valid.

I debated along time ago, so it would take some time before I will be able to find my sources again.

Just my two cents.. I am new here so i don't exactly know how things work around here. Weszup 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems out of place because there's just one, but there should be examples of generalizations from many fields, to demonstrate the concept as it applies to them. LokiClock (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you should assume there is only one article for the whole wide-ranging field of different of generalizations. Granted, they don't all just appear under the one heading, although some starte out that way. Here are the various articles which either have "generalization" as part of the title or were redirected to a name more appropriate. Here they are:


 * Generalization (logic)
 * Hasty generalization
 * Generalization error
 * Categorical imperative redirected from "Generalization in Ethics"
 * Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers
 * Generalizations of Pauli matrices
 * Derivative (generalizations)


 * Take your pick. I am sure one of those at least will satisfy your curiosity. Howzat then? Dieter Simon (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing the page to be more helpful
It appears to me everyone has abandoned Generalizations. So if you guys don't mind. I will try and edit the page so that it focuses more on the argumentative aspect generalizations. This is where it is most often used. The math aspect to me is rather vague. This whole article is rather vague. Weszup 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Readers want clear, simple information
You would think that an article that is supposed to convey information would provide the ordinary–language definition instead of the mathematical definition. Generalization is the assumption that if an entity has a particular attribute then most or all instances of that entity will also have the same attribute. It's that simple. Examples of a generalization are, "most Irishmen like to fight," "all lemons are bitter," or "every swan is white." Isn't this clearer than saying that generalization "posits the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements"?Lestrade (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * The only problem with your objection is that your recommendation and the examples you are citing aren't of a similar nature. You should be giving a more simplified version of the statement "posits the existence..." rather than giving us a set of examples which I presume you mean to sound amusing rather than being factual: "All Irishmen like to fight?" Go on then, and replace the sentence you are referring to by something more readable if you can. Don't just complain, do it, why don't you? Dieter Simon (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dieter, we both know that a clear, simplified definition will be immediately deleted and the article will revert to the previous obscure, complicated definition. By the way, Weszup has a nice definition above. Sample A has characteristic x, therefore the population of A's has characteristic x. It even sounds mathematical.Lestrade (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Protected article: Generalization
Protected Generalization [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism). Dieter Simon (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor article
A logically consistent encyclopediac article on generalization should not be mathematical to the point of being specialized. The article, as is, is very poor. GreySun (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it made no sense at all, one thing if you specialize in mathematics, but AN ARTICLE that is not about mathematics, should not be mathematical, because that does not make sense, much less, being mathematical for something that is not about mathematics, has nothing to do with mathematics, and will never have any connection, between "Math" and a "Generalization" encyclopediac/article, lol. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Link to German Wikipedia wrong
Currently it links to "Gemein". It should, however, link to "Generalisierung" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.13.2.238 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing Generalization
It seems to me that everyone here has valid points about this article. However, I don't understand why people are trying to focus on one particular aspect of generalization, nor do I understand why half the article is written in such an overcomplicated way. We're talking about generalizing here, the process of processing a collection of data and forming a basic idea or model of what characteristics the data have in common. Trees are many different shades and hues and even colors, they come in many different shapes and sizes, but in general a tree is a rounded green blob of leaves on a brown stick stuck in the earth. Keep it simple, please, in the first paragraph, at least. Any specific uses of generalization can have their own sections, the way it is in any other Wikipedia article.

Also, I personally don't think that there should be such a focus on Generalization's relationship to Concept, or at least not in the first paragraph; a simple, brief, passing comparison should do.

And why is "set" linked to Set theory? The way it's used isn't necessarily mathematical in nature; it is only used as a synonym of 'group' or 'collection' or what have you, at least as far as I can tell.

In conclusion, it sounds like whoever wrote this had something to prove to someone, trying to sound intelligent and sophisticated, instead of trying to edit the article so that people can read it comfortably and readily understand it. There are topics which absolutely require advanced English and other technical writ in order to explain it accurately, but Generalization is hardly complicated or technical unless people actively try to make it that way. Everyone knows intuitively what Generalizing is (I'm doing it in this very sentence), we as editors only need to describe it - accurately, yet simply. You can go hog-wild with educated jargon in the sections below the introductory paragraph. Mousenight (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Generalizing or Generalization
summary: by generalizing you convert a unique object (hence of specific property) (including event, state, etc.) or individually existing object into an object with multiple or general existence (occurrence) either by experience or by hypothesis). Several grammar/syntax forms are available to do so, you may call them all generalizations.

Human languages and logic are tautological. The easiest way to illustrate the point is to generate a sentence like this: you generalize by generalizing to result in a generalization, which is general. Now clearly, the issue is what do you generalize? A word or a statement? If you start off with an object (word) and abstract its properties, you may add those properties to the object in subject position and claim that "vegetables are edible". This is considered to be general, because vegetables sound non-specified. The idea may also be stressed by saying "all vegetables are edible". So we call the statement a generalization because the subject is not specific "enough". That "enough" is subjective, though, depends on your knowledge. If this does not sound satisfactory, you may call for examples or proofs and you may list exemptions to argue. A subject may be considered general (not specific enough), if it is in plural, or singular preceded by a definite/indefinite article. Examples: Cows give milk. A cow gives milt, the cow gives milk. Whenever you have an encounter with a cow, you may then propagate any of the former observations unharmed. However, they all sound like rules, hence of general value and effect, therefore an example of generalization. Hence generalizing is nearly always present whenever you make a proposition. If the proposition is not specific enough, you protest. If you consider generalization as a mental operation, which it may well be, then remember, that before you start generalizing, upon selecting an object and having experience with it, you perform abstraction, another mental operation by pinpointing some properties of that object (usually in comparison with others) and you use such a property or attribute to make your generalization (statement). Remember also that most of the statements you make tell you about some property of some object. So in fact, you generalize a one-time experience by using one of the possibly several forms available in your language that all sound generalizations. Compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Generalization 89.133.206.224 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Induction & deduction
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.

WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:

Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.

[David Hume], philosopher condemner.

[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.

[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.

[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.

[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.

Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.

Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.

[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.

[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.

Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)