Talk:Philosophy of evolution

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because even though it appears to have actually been taken from https://on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, the author of the latter blogpost also seems to potentially be the author of this draft (since the blogpost is signed off as "JTV", whereas the draft creator is "Joeteevee"). --Duckmather (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Legally, that's not how it works, read WP:COPYVIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Lopifalko,
 * FYI: (if it helps, to clarify?)
 * = Draft talk:Evolutionary philosophy =
 * Draft
 * Talk
 * Read
 * Edit
 * Add topic
 * View history
 * Unwatch
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Unwatch
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== [subscribe]Contested deletion[edit] == @Curb Safe Charmer: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because even though it appears to have actually been taken from https://on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, the author of the latter blogpost also seems to potentially be the author of this draft (since the blogpost is signed off as "JTV", whereas the draft creator is "Joeteevee"). --Duckmather (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply] Visual Source  Reply to ‪Duckmather‬  Advanced By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
 * Legally, that's not how it works, read WP:COPYVIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply][ reply]
 * @Joeteevee: I found that the draft was actually a copypaste of on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, but now that I think of it ... are you the blogpost's author? The names match (you're "Joeteevee", whereas the author originally signed off as "JTV"), and also the blogpost begins with a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic, which makes it actually being copied here to English Wikipedia more plausible. Duckmather (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply][ reply]
 * Hi Duckmather
 * Many thanks for this.
 * Re:
 * "I found that the draft was actually a copypaste of on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, but now that I think of it ... are you the blogpost's author?"
 * JTV says: Yes; that would explain, why that blog post of mine [on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html] begins with, indeed, as you say: "a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic". (Well spotted. You are correct!)
 * Re:
 * "The names match (you're "Joeteevee", whereas the author originally signed off as "JTV"), and also the blogpost begins with a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic, which makes it actually being copied here to English Wikipedia more plausible. Duckmather (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)"
 * JTV says: Yes indeed. So, now it should be clearer, why they match.
 * (That blog post was indeed about a future entry on this topic; this submitted Wikipedia entry is, that article.)
 * As an aside Duckmather, may I say - good (i.e., commendable) work, on spotting any potential plagiarism (but, in this case, it's not plagiarism; I am indeed the author of both articles; and, am not plagiarizing myself.)
 * Also, in case it perhaps helps with the approval / publishing process, for me (the author/submitter) to give you more context (as to why I am submitting the article):
 * - I have a PhD in Evolutionary Culturology (since 2016), so I myself am a meta-meta-scientist (an Evolutionary Culturologist); I am not a philosopher. So, since Science and Philosophy are different domains, there is no `conflict of interest' for me, as there might perhaps otherwise be, if I was a professional philosopher; which, I can confirm, I am not).
 * - One key reason for submitting the article is: when I was doing my PhD (2012-2016) I, for one, (and many others in the same position) would have benefited greatly (i.e., it would have saved me a lot of time) if there was already a Wikipedia article on "Evolutionary Philosophy" (like the one I have submitted, including a survey of the domain and field). If and when published on Wikipedia, the article should also save a lot of other Evolutionary Philosophers a lot of time, so I would expect, it would be of great benefit to many people, and to knowledge in general.
 * - As an another aside (which may or may not be relevant; not sure?), I have also published formal encyclopedia articles previously, in peer-reviewed scientific Encyclopedias (2017 & 2020).
 * (e.g. See: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-066X)
 * [Those 2 encyclopedia articles (2017 & 2020) were not on this specific topic, i.e. `Evolutionary Philosophy'. Those encyclopedia entries were on: the meta-meta-science of Evolutionary Culturology.]
 * At any rate, thank you again for this note, Duckmather, and, I do hope (?) it should be clear now, why the Wikipedia article I've submitted here is rather similar to the one on my weblog (about: planning to submit this article, to Wikipedia.)
 * So - thank you again, and, I wonder, are we perhaps able to approve the article for publication?
 * (I'm sure others can and will improve/expand the article as time goes on, but for now, I believe it is a serious "gap in the literature" within Wikipedia, that there is not currently an entry on "Evolutionary Philosophy", when it (Evolutionary Philosophy) has been firmly established as a domain in culture (and as a field, in literature and academia) since Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995).)
 * I look forward to your thoughts,
 * Best regards,
 * ~JTV Joeteevee (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[ reply][ reply]
 * Preferences
 * Share feedback about this feature CancelReply Return to replyReturn to reply

Categories: Joeteevee (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Draft-Class Philosophy articles
 * NA-importance Philosophy articles
 * Draft-Class science articles
 * NA-importance science articles
 * NA-Class Evolutionary biology articles
 * NA-importance Evolutionary biology articles
 * WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
 * This page was last edited on 21 January 2024, at 08:48.
 * Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * @Joeteevee: I found that the draft was actually a copypaste of on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, but now that I think of it ... are you the blogpost's author? The names match (you're "Joeteevee", whereas the author originally signed off as "JTV"), and also the blogpost begins with a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic, which makes it actually being copied here to English Wikipedia more plausible. Duckmather (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * Hi Duckmather
 * Many thanks for this.
 * Re:
 * "I found that the draft was actually a copypaste of on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html, but now that I think of it ... are you the blogpost's author?"
 * JTV says: Yes; that would explain, why that blog post of mine [on-writering.blogspot.com/2022/03/towards-evolutionary-philosophy-page-on.html] begins with, indeed, as you say: "a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic". (Well spotted. You are correct!)
 * Re:
 * "The names match (you're "Joeteevee", whereas the author originally signed off as "JTV"), and also the blogpost begins with a preamble about writing a not-ready-to-show draft of a potential Wikipedia entry for the topic, which makes it actually being copied here to English Wikipedia more plausible. Duckmather (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)"
 * JTV says: Yes indeed. So, now it should be clearer, why they match.
 * (That blog post was indeed about a future entry on this topic; this submitted Wikipedia entry is, that article.)
 * As an aside Duckmather, may I say - good (i.e., commendable) work, on spotting any potential plagiarism (but, in this case, it's not plagiarism; I am indeed the author of both articles; and, am not plagiarizing myself.)
 * Also, in case it perhaps helps with the approval / publishing process, for me (the author/submitter) to give you more context (as to why I am submitting the article):
 * - I have a PhD in Evolutionary Culturology (since 2016), so I myself am a meta-meta-scientist (an Evolutionary Culturologist); I am not a philosopher. So, since Science and Philosophy are different domains, there is no `conflict of interest' for me, as there might perhaps otherwise be, if I was a professional philosopher; which, I can confirm, I am not).
 * - One key reason for submitting the article is: when I was doing my PhD (2012-2016) I, for one, (and many others in the same position) would have benefited greatly (i.e., it would have saved me a lot of time) if there was already a Wikipedia article on "Evolutionary Philosophy" (like the one I have submitted, including a survey of the domain and field). If and when published on Wikipedia, the article should also save a lot of other Evolutionary Philosophers a lot of time, so I would expect, it would be of great benefit to many people, and to knowledge in general.
 * - As an another aside (which may or may not be relevant; not sure?), I have also published formal encyclopedia articles previously, in peer-reviewed scientific Encyclopedias (2017 & 2020).
 * (e.g. See: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-066X)
 * [Those 2 encyclopedia articles (2017 & 2020) were not on this specific topic, i.e. `Evolutionary Philosophy'. Those encyclopedia entries were on: the meta-meta-science of Evolutionary Culturology.]
 * At any rate, thank you again for this note, Duckmather, and, I do hope (?) it should be clear now, why the Wikipedia article I've submitted here is rather similar to the one on my weblog (about: planning to submit this article, to Wikipedia.)
 * So - thank you again, and, I wonder, are we perhaps able to approve the article for publication?
 * (I'm sure others can and will improve/expand the article as time goes on, but for now, I believe it is a serious "gap in the literature" within Wikipedia, that there is not currently an entry on "Evolutionary Philosophy", when it (Evolutionary Philosophy) has been firmly established as a domain in culture (and as a field, in literature and academia) since Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995).)
 * I look forward to your thoughts,
 * Best regards,
 * ~JTV Joeteevee (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[ reply]

Original research
Given the conversation on this article talk page and reading the contents of the article, I am concerned about WP:OR/WP:Synth. Frankly it reads like an essay or theory, but carefully structured to avoid being challenged through its citations. Evolutionary philosophy, seems to be valid topic, but it its concepts might be covered by other articles. There has been an AFD for an article with this title before (Articles for deletion/Evolutionary philosophy), but that was in 2006. I would like to hear other editor's opinions on this article. I might nominate for AFD. I am not opposed to sending back to draft either. I will be pinging some WikiProjects shortly. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Science, and WikiProject Philosophy have been notified of this discussion.--Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, the article as it stands is not at all essay-like, nor does not appear to propose any theory that I can detect. As for its "careful structure", that appears to be a list of items linked by the word "Evolutionary" repeated 11 times. The obvious criticism would be that the article covers a bunch of notable subtopics, in quite a scrappy and disjointed way, but does little to explain how these topics together constitute "philosophy". The lead asserts that books by Dennett and others are significant in marking out the field, and a list of "Significant works" is provided, but the article signally fails to explain why these are significant.


 * On deletion, an AfD should certainly fail as the topic is undoubtedly notable. The article's lack of structure does much to make it look worthless; it would do better to focus on "Evolutionary Philosophy" (yes, there are far too many capital letters here), currently just the very brief Chapter 1 of the article, and explain from the sources what in fact that central thing consists of, rather than rambling off into side-topics like Ethics or Aesthetics or Studies of the Arts. The current content is not well-argued or integrated, and it may well need substantial rewriting from some of the "significant works". Draftify and try again? Why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chiswick Chap, I do not know, for me, the lede is awful essay-like, same goes for the "Applied Evolutionary Epistemology" and "How Knowledge Evolves from Philosophy to Science over time" sections.
 * Additionally, the creator of this version of the article has cited their own dissertation and other works, which brings in WP:COI/WP:SELFCITE issues as well. 13 of the 46 refs to Velikovsky (many to personal Wordpress blogs). Citation 30 (AppEEL sites.google) leads to spam. Many refs are just after names and book titles. None of these book citations reference a single page. The journal articles also do not reference a page.
 * "Evolutionary Philosophy" is a valid topic, but "Evolutionary Culturology" (scholar search) is primarily a Velikovsky concept. (Velikovsky runs a couple of blogs and a YouTube channel on this idea it appears.) This article seems to buoy that theory (WP:COATRACK-ish). For example, take the final paragraph of the "Applied Evolutionary Epistemology" section.
 * For me, I have a hard time seeing this article meeting any of the three core content policies.
 * I agree with your points about the disjointed nature. I cleaned up the see also and headings, but not going to go through and de-capitalise and Wikilink everything. Needs to be re-written in an encyclopedic tone from an objective editor in my opinion. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at the "Tree of Culture" image. What is that about? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, sort of. I've chopped the worst of the subsections, which were basically completely off-topic, and that includes the Velikovsky nonsense, the Tree of Culture, and the text near it. I've grouped the remaining sections into something vaguely logical. The lead is actually a discussion not a leadlike summary, so it needs to move out from there and be cited properly. Wikilinking is definitely needed as well. Then we can start wondering what the article ought actually to be saying: hint -- discussing the actual philosophy insofar as it relates to evolutionary biology itself, sadly lacking ATM. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If "evolutionary philosophy" is a real domain of philosophical inquiry, that should be easy to establish with reference to a dedicated journal or a few academic anthologies edited by self-identified evolutionary philosophers. The main thing I'm turning up, however, is a self-published book by a blogger who claims to have invented the field.
 * The one legit use of the term I see is in reference to the philosophy of Karl Popper. With a few edits to that article, this search term could redirect there.
 * Otherwise, absent additional evidence for the existence of the field, I would support deletion.
 * Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, best we don't get hung up on very narrow searches. Philosophy of evolution returns a huge number of hits on Google Scholar (over 4 million); a similar ordinary Google search returns a large and distinguished list of entries, starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so I think you can safely forget any worries about notability. And that's not to mention the list of book sources already in the article. But I'd certainly agree that "Philosophy of evolution" is a better title, maybe we should immediately move it to that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (in case you are not watching the talk). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Philosophers examining evolutionary theory is a different thing (indisputably notable, in many instances) from evolution as a mode or discipline of philosophy (which I think it is not). I'm perfectly happy to leave it to other editors to follow the sources to determine whether the former deserves its own article, or if it is better left covered by evolution and its existing child articles. Wikipedia should not have an article on the latter, however, unless it can be shown to exist and meet notability requirements.
 * Thanks for the work you've done cleaning up the article —
 * Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, the application of philosophy to evolution is certainly a thing as you say, a shelf-ful of books to say the least. If there was an intention here to assert that there was a discrete evolutionary mode of philosophy, that's news as there isn't any good evidence of it, and even the term is as you say hard to find. If the Velikovsky side of things is eventually taken up by other philosophers it would become notable in Wikipedia's terms, but it doesn't seem to have done so today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)