Talk:Pseudophilosophy/Archive 2

Chomsky 2093 edit
New edits should be put at the bottom of the page, because that is where people look for them. People do not, in general, reread the top of the page.

Richard Dwarkins is a prominent thinker and published author. Rick Norwood 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing this page.

 * I took the liberty to refactor the section in the interest of the discussion. All the posts pertaining to the resolved issue are in this section, the actual discussion is below. |dorftrottel |talk 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave this alone!!!! If you can show me a Wikipedia rule that states that new comments go at the bottom then fine. Otherwise cut it out.

If you are convinced that comments at the top are read last then leave this alone. And if you are so concerned with order then move it rather than deleting it. It is only a comment.

There is no rule about this, only a guideline. The guideline does not encourage editors to delete comments that to not comply with a guideline!


 * Note to Gkochanowsky

I made the same mistake you made when I first came to Wikipedia. I assumed that something posted at the top of the Talk page would get read first. In fact, no experienced Wikipedian reads a Talk page from the top down, they start at the bottom, where they expect new posts to be. If you want your post to be read, post it where people will read it. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Be that as it may. If the person screwing with my comments wants their comments to be left alone they should extend the courtesy to others. And if they think it so important that new comments be placed at the bottom then they should move them there rather then deleting them altogether. The actions of that person are rude and inappropriate. Gkochanowsky (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think is rude and inappropriate is moving your comment from the bottom to the top of the page. It is also in violation of the talk page guidelines. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Consequently I will once again remove your comment. If you want to put it back, put it at the bottom. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think it belongs at the bottom then put it there. Deleting is very rude, moving is much less so. Gkochanowsky (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was becoming very big, so I archived the majority of old and very old threads. Incidentally, this means that until the next time the page is archived, your thread will at least very close to the top. I hope this resolves the issue, so that fruitful debate can continue. |dorftrottel |talk 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal Cod philosophy

 * Seems to me make sense to merge the short 'cod philosophy' article in here - may mot be exactly the same topic, but 'pseudophilosophy' seems to include 'cod philosophy'. Anarchia (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * agree Cod philosophy seems to be a neologism that is catching on.  It is too useful to delete, but not common enough for its own article.  Sadly, if there is a merger, then the fictional reference will have to go.  On the other hand, after the merger, the discussion of cod philosophy should be expanded.  In particular, who coined the word?  Also, after the merger it should be mentioned that some cod philosophy is pseudophilosophy, some not.  Also, a distinction needs to be made between real cod philosophy (hobo philosophy such as in "Don't take life so seriously, it ain't nohow permanent.") and non-philosophical folk wisdom on the one hand ("A stich in time saves nine.") and urban legend on the other (moon landings are a hoax). Rick Norwood (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've merged it into the lead - if anyone wants to expand the mention of cod philosophy in this article, feel free to do so. Terraxos (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mysticism
I had added this under "Accusations of pseudophilosophy in academia":


 * "Excursions into mysticism are generally frowned upon by academic philosophers. A notable example is the nonacceptance by academics of Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of quality, an experience described in his two books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila: An inquiry into morals. The mystical explanation, the academic philosopher laments, invariably is to accept at the same time p as true and not-p also as true. Interestingly, the later philosophy of both Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, each the most prominent figure in his philosophical tradition, was criticized for devolving into mysticism."

It was tagged, and subsequently deleted. I do not believe the question of whether or not appeals to mysticism are considered pseudophilosophy is a controversial one. I thought the entry on the matter was a neutral one.

I would be fascinated to know exactly what pov it is supposed that I portrayed. I think it is right and good that academic philosophers frown on mysticism for the sake of a rigorous standard. At the same time I think one may find mysticism convenient for one's own personal understanding of things (...path, religion, etc). I also think that the story by Pirsig is probably the most popularly known example of an "Accusation of pseudophilosophy in academia."

I don't know what I think about the criticisms of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. I would like to know more about it (perhaps from a future contributor). So if it's pov, then it's purely unintentional.

I think the topic of mysticism as pseudophilosophy deserves some mention. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-deleted this section, since the tag that was hanging on it said that it had been unreferenced since a year ago. This issue here is one of referencing and verification; it's not enough to say "mysticism is frowned upon", we need to know by who particularly, and that they are criticizing mysticism for depicting itself as philosophy while actually being psuedophilosophy, rather than for some other reason.  Also statements about what philosophers do or don't accept need to be backed up in some way- what do we mean here by "accept", and what's the basis for thinking this is the case?  --Clay Collier (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A year later, it's still not fixed so I deleted it again. A couple of references to Pirsig's novel do nothing to support the main contentions of the section.  Mysticism is, of course, not necessarily pseudophilosophy - often it's just mysticism. Pirsig's explanation of the metaphysics of quality may or may not be good philosophy, but I see nothing distinctly mystical about it.  In any case, it would require a source which says as much.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Source
Some material in this article appears to be remarkable similar to that on the following site: , and also the para quoted above re Zen and the Art of writing a best seller" where we read Mysticism Excursions into mysticism are generally frowned upon by academic philosophers. A notable example is the nonacceptance by academics of Robert M. Pirsig’s .. --Philogo (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that the absoluteastronomy site copied the wp entry. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removal of citation request tag from opening
Hello KillerChihuahua, I'm sorry, I was unaware of a policy requirement that the placement of a "Refimprove" template superseded the possibility of adding any further individual citation request templates, could you provide me with the details on that? Personally, I view their addition under circumstances like this as helpfully intended requests for citations directed specifically at a particular claim already existing in the article; rather than a generalized undirected template at the top alone, it points editors toward specific material. In actuality, there already was a 'free standing' citation request tag in the article in the "postmoderism" section before I placed mine. Because of my own reading of policy, I'd like to gently remind you, that any material that is challenged, should be capable of being supported by a reliably sourced citation. Personally, I believe that when you're asked to accept an authoritative claim to an exact equivalence between two categories, in this case "pseudophilosophy" and "pseudoscience", it is not an unreasonable request to ask for a referential basis from a reliable source to substantiate the position. Would you please explain why you feel that position has no merit and again, if possible, please point me toward the policy regarding the illicit nature of adding a citation request after a "Refimprove" template is in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of this article is poorly sourced. Feel free to trim the heck out of it. As far as your presumption that I "feel that position has no merit" you are in error. Once something is tagged, it is redundant to tag it again for the same thing. If you wish to comb thru the article and citeneeded specifics, and remove the hattemplate, that would probably be better than leaving the refimprove in place, so in retrospect I should have gone the other way - removed refimprove and left in-article citeneededs. Finally, I just saw your note to me on the talk page of a different article. If you wish to draw my attention to an article talk page post, please post on my talk page, not another article talk page - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reflection
The section on Hegel contains the following: The philosopher Walter Kaufmann contended that Schopenhauer's attacks actually tell us more about Schopenhauer than about Hegel. We could also say that the Kaufmann contension tells us more about Kaufmann than it does about Schopenhauer. This type of reflected assertion could be repeated to infinity (Lestrade's contension about Kaufmann tells us more about Lestrade than it does about Kaufmann).Lestrade (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Attempts to improve
I have changed the introduction to make it simpler, and also to avoid the appearance, at a glance, that Hegel - for example - didn't meet academic standards. Removed unsourced material, corrected the assumption that "cod" comes from codswallop. Took out the unsourced suggestion that Kierkegaard's objection to Hegel was similar to Schopenhauer's(!). I am not aware that Kierkegaard accused Hegel of being a pseudophilosopher - rather that K. had a problem with systematic philosophy as such. In any case, no citation for it. I removed the unsourced Kaufman comment on Hegel and Schopenhauer and replaced it with something sourced.

Tried to separate out Heidegger, postmodernists, Derrida, Sokal - all mixed together. Accusations about Heidegger are far from recent. Took out Nouveau Philosophes, in the wrong place and in case no example given of accusations of pseudophilosophy (Deleuze attacked their politics). Similarly Sartre on Camus: it was a political dispute, and Sartre accused Camus of being lazy and pretending to have read books he hadn't read. I don't see pseudophilosophy as the issue, either in the original LTM review of L'Homme Revolte or in Sartre's subsequent interventions. I deleted the examples of Botton and Irwin who may be guilty of simplifying or popularizing philosophical ideas, but aren't really accused of being pseudophilosophers as such. Watering down genuine, mainstream philosophy is different than creating pseudophilosophy. I'd like to delete Phillips, but don't know enough about the example.

I really don't like this article at all, but I hope it's better now.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Deletion of mysticism section
Reasons:


 * Mysticism is not, or not necessarily, pseudophilosophy. Generally it doesn't pretend to be philosophy at all.  For example, I wouldn't support the inclusion of a section on Zen Buddhism.
 * If nevertheless the article has to have a section on mysticism, it can't just be about Robert Pirsig. He is not exactly the only mystic, if he's a mystic at all.
 * As for the latter, is there a source which supports labeling him a mystic or pseudo-philosopher? Or a citation for the statement about p and not p and the "lament" of the academic philosopher?  Citing his two novels, with no page references, isn't sufficient - what one really needs is a secondary source making a relevant comment about the novels.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Richard Dawkins joke?
"The biologist Richard Dawkins has claimed that postmodernists are generally intellectual charlatans who deliberately obscure weak or nonsensical ideas with ostentatious and difficult to understand verbiage."

I have no problem with this quote, im just wondering if using words like "ostentatious" and "verbiage" was intended to be a clever little joke while discussing Dawkin's feeling these writers use too many big words. Either way, I laughed a whole lot. Thank you. 67.158.67.4 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion
This seems like a serious article with some serious problems. The lead "Pseudophilosophy is a term..." has no sourcing. The lead, and especially the first paragraph of an article, is like a definition and therefore requires sourcing. The body of the article is sourced, but it's just a list of where "pseudo-philosophy" has been used before, but does not justify the lead. If the second paragraph is the definition then there is a contradiction in the article. It states that pseudophilosophy is "particularly appropriate when applied to "those who use the resources of reason to substantiate the claim that rationality is unachievable in matters of inquiry." Then why is Ayn Rand in the "Accusations against popular philosophers"? She is, if nothing else, an advocate of rationality. In fact, the section "Accusations against popular philosophers" should probably be removed the way it is now. Two of the entries are un-cited and the Rand citation is by a writer of unknown qualifications. I can see this section degenerating into a "philosophy I hate" list. Compare this article to pseudoscience and it makes this one seem an embarrassment."

The article seems to me, the way it is now, to be a candidate for deletion. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

probably just needs reverted back about 8 months before it was eviscerated. conceptually, i don't think you can do an afd. needs improvement is not a reason for afd, non-notability is a reason for afd, but alas this is pretty darn notable. --Buridan (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectivism citation
I removed the following:


 * Ayn Rand's Objectivism has been referred to as a pseudophilosophy,[6] with varying justifications.[citation needed] Many of her views are presented in her romantic realist-style novels, rather than in scholarly publications.

The citation is an opinion article by Leslie Clark and the staff at the The Herald Scotland. Setting aside the obvious question of why this particular author/article/paper is notable/authoritative, there is the issue that the above is not substantiated by the citation. This is what is written in the article:


 * These are romance novels with a patina of pseudo-philosophy which is well-suited to those desperate for adulthood.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this critique, it is most certainly a critique directed at of her novels, not Objectivism per se of which there is considerable body of non-fiction publications by Rand as well as scholarly publications by, e.g., Tara Smith. More importantly, even if the author were directly labeling Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy, he provides no justification. Thus, the cite, not only being non-notable, doesn't support the removed text. Alfred Centauri (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

verifiable sources
note, that verifiable sources do not have to be notable, or the whole darn encyclopedia falls apart. what counts as a verifiable sources is described in wikipedia policy, and major newspapers, with editors and authors all count. they author does not have to be personally notable to be a verifiable source. WP:RS is the policy  --Buridan (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-- this is the bit that keeps getting reverted. I do not have time to fix it right now. I will return to it, add more citations, because there are several that can be added that help to show this opinion of 'objectivism' and then we'll just put it back as appropriate. --Buridan (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ayn Rand's Objectivism has been referred to as a pseudophilosophy, with varying justifications. Many of her views are presented in her romantic realist-style novels, rather than in scholarly publications.
 * If the text had read "One Australian newspaper writer has labeled Ayn Rand's novels as having a patina of pseudo-philosophy...", I'd think most would consider this fact non-notable if not non-relevant to the article. Yet, that is all the citation establishes.  See the section I started just above this one. Alfred Centauri (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the same editor made a similar change to Objectivism on Feb. 8. Phiwum (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some may be missing the point. This is not an article on sports or movies. This is supposedly a serious article. Would the opinions of a National Enquirer writer be relevant for an article on particle physics? If this article is to be taken seriously, which at the moment I don't think it can, it's a topic that need academically notable sources, not just verifiable sources. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * check this version for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudophilosophy&oldid=280458774 the way the article was until someone ripped it up, it goes through waves.  some better than others. --Buridan (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very briefly...The earlier version is more in detail and I noticed that the lead paragraph has a "citation-needed" notation which the current version does not. The earlier version had the sentence "Pseudophilosophy bears the same relationship to philosophy that pseudoscience bears to science" which I think is very debatable statement. I also suspect there's always going to be a problem with a section on "popular philosophers", since pretty much every popular philosopher has been called "pseudo" by a media critic at some time, used pejoratively without serious consideration. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 900+ individual mentions of pseudo-philosophy in scholarship, and several more hundred in books. I don't think it is an issue of media.  It is an issue of somethings not being philosophy, for instance, Randianism is for many scholars, not a philosophy, and for a minority it is, so, we have to take these things into account at both levels.  Is the concept notable, the answer is yes.  is this a good article, no.  should Randianism be used as an example of a pseudophilosophy, yes, if sources can be found. --Buridan (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If 'pseudo-philosophy' is a term used seriously in academia, then the article should predominantly use academic sources. Here's an idea. We remove both "accusations against..." sections. The body of the article would then use the opinions only of serious academics and scholarship. We then create a subsection "Use of term 'pseudophilosophy' in Popular Culture" which would be use by magazine writers, commentators, etc.. What do you think? BashBrannigan (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * nah that doesn't work, because the journalists are using it the exact same way and with the exact same precision. --01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, I think that was my point. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins doesn't say "Pseudophilosophy"
Dawkins statement doesn't belong to here, because he never mentions "pseudophilosophy". The only two times he mentions "pseudo" is:
 * pseudo-scientific and philosophical jargon

implying that he dislikes the philosophicalness of the jargon, and
 * Baudrillard's text "continues in a gradual crescendo of nonsense". They again call attention to "the high density of scientific and pseudo-scientific terminology

implying that he criticises a Baudrillard's text, that somewhere says "pseudo-scientific". I propose move the sentence where Dawkins is mentioned to Pseudoscience. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I suspect he detest philosophers, pseudo or not, Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the Dawkins reference as per the above. Too much of this article feels like padding with synthesis. From reading this article, I get the impression that philosophers have rarely used the term "pseudo". The only direct reference given is from Schopenhauer. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because the most uses of the term "pseudophilosophy" are independently derived by imitation of the concept of pseudoscience, which is much better defined. There is not any widely used concept of pseudophilosophy. So of course the article is synthesis, because there is no central idea shared by the users of the term. --RL0919 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying is correct, then everything except the Hegel section and the lead definition should be scrapped! BashBrannigan (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed material without sources
I removed all material which was not sourced and where sources did not explicitly tie the material to "pseudo-philosophy" which means it was synthesis by editors that made the connection. If someone wishes to improve this article with good sourced material, feel free. However, "pseudo-philosophy" is more a colloquial term predominantly used to simply disparage viewpoints one doesn't agree with and is rarely employed by academics. This is in contrast to the use of the term "pseudo-science" where bad science can have immediate, concrete bad results. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Identical article
The article now is identical to that to be found at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pseudophilosophy  --Philogo (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That site is a Wikipedia mirror, so they are the ones cloning us, not vice-versa. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)