User:Physicalist/Hempel's Dilemma/Macbookair101 Peer Review

 STRENGHTS 

 Clear vocabulary: 

-The article is written in a clear manner that is easy to understand for those who are not familiar with the subject matter.

-The words are easy to understand. not complex and advanced vocabulary.

 Inclusion of Historical Context: 

-The article references Hempel's dilemma, which is an important historical context for the concept of Physicalism.

 Integration of a Source: 

-The article incorporates the proposal by Beenakker to resolve Hempel's dilemma, which adds credibility and depth to the discussion.

 Explanation: 

-Good explanation of the word physicalism.

-The subject is present in the article.

 TO BE IMPROVED 

 Structure: 

-The overall structure is quite sloppy and mixed information.

-The information is coherent although the information is spread around.

-There could be some room for improvement in terms of sentence structure and flow to make the text more readable and engaging.

 Wording: 

-The word "physics" is repeated 10 times. Following website could be useful for using synonyms; https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/physics

-The phrase "what is ‘natural’?" could be rephrased as "what does 'natural' mean in the context of physicalism?"

-In the second paragraph, the sentence "And therein lies the rub, as a worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories" could be rephrased. the sentence itself does not make much sense.

-In the final sentence, the phrase "although many people in philosophy (and other fields such as cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience) hold to physicalism" could be rephrased for clarity as "although many philosophers and scholars in fields such as cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience subscribe to physicalism." Remove the parentheses.

-For Wikipedia articles, the preferred style is to use double quotation marks ("like this") for direct quotations and to italicize words or phrases that are being defined or discussed as terms or concepts. Should be "ontological reality" and 'ontological reality'.

-Missing words.

-There is not enough words to reinforce what you are trying to say and not enough words for my team and I to give a concise peer review. Also, the article is not long enough.

 Provide Examples: 

-It may be useful to provide concrete examples of how physicalism has been applied in philosophy, science, or other fields to illustrate the practical implications of the problem.

-Not enough information for a wikipedia article. the information provided is broad.

-Provide more concrete or interesting sources to introduce new information that would be useful to an individual seeking fact and depth regarding Hempel’s Dilemma.

 Clarify The Terminology: 

-The article could benefit from a clear definition of key terms such as "physicalism" and "natural." This may be done by providing a brief overview of the historical and philosophical origins of these concepts.

 Explain the Problem: 

-The article should provide a clear and concise explanation of the problem that physicalism poses, particularly the issue of defining what is considered "natural." This could be done by breaking down the different interpretations of physicalism and explaining the implications of each.

 Evaluate Arguments: 

-The article could be improved by including an evaluation of the different arguments for and against physicalism. This could include an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each argument.

 Conclusion: 

-The article could be concluded by summarizing the main points and discussing any potential future developments or research directions related to physicalism.

 Personal narrative :

AVOID USING PERSONAL PRONOUNS DESCRIBING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE SINCE IT WOULD BE SUBJECTIVE.

-A Wikipedia article should be objective and neutral in tone.

-However, this type of physicalism in its turn leaves open the question of what we are to consider as the proper terms of physics.

-The philosophical concept, “Physicalism” claims all matter that exists in our world is purely physical, and all can be explained through the laws of nature.

-It also means 'ontological reality', and not just a hypothesis or a calculational technique), but one common understanding of the claim is that everything in our world is ultimately explicable in the terms of physics. This is known as reductive physicalism.

-On one hand, we may define the physical as what is explained by our best physical theories, e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity.

-Though many would find this definition unsatisfactory, some would accept that we have at least a general understanding of the physical based on these theories, and can use them to assess what is physical and what is not.

-On the other hand, if we say that some future, "ideal" physics is what is meant, then the claim is rather empty, for we have no idea of what this means. The "ideal" physics may even come to define what we think of as mental as part of the physical world.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)