User talk:Jag1498/sandbox

What is the division of labor for you two? So, it looks like you'll be adding another section to the article. Continue polishing your language and thinking about content. It wasn't clear to me what are the relationships between the paragraphs in your current draft. It might also be helpful to contextualize your section/discussion as specifically pertaining to the debates surrounding linguistic categories/concepts and lexical semantics.

"Putnam brings semantics into question, and insists that natural kinds can not be thought of via descriptive processes (such as lists of properties), as one does not refer to the natural kind." --> The last part of this sentence "as one does not refer to the natural kind" contains an ambiguous referent and does not explain Putnam's main point. His main point with respect to natural kinds is that their meaning is not determined by convention = language (unlike artifacts), their meaning is "simply not in the head," it is fixed by the essential nature of the categories themselves. That is, while it doesn't make sense to argue whether something is a bowl or a cup (the category boundaries may be truly fuzzy), this is not true of natural kinds. Something either is a tiger/gold/water or is not -- the category boundaries are sharp even if we could not define exactly what they are (because we need expert knowledge). (Katya) BikuK (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
The wikipedia page for natural kinds can be seen as a bit biased so some revision of the language there is probably a good idea. Also the formatting on the page is a bit confusing as it is just a list of names for the subsections. Adding subsections on the different views and putting the existing names (and their respective arguments) under which category they support would be a really good way to make the page more clear. (Destiny) Buffy0123 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I agree with Katya's comments about your organization so far, that you could make it clearer how the parts relate to one another and what Putnam's main point is. At the same time identify what parts of Putnam's article on semantics are actually relevant specifically to natural kinds. Some of the information you seem to be using from the SEP article may need to be explained more clearly as you present it out of the context of that article and for a general audience.

Remember also to update the introduction to reflect your changes: The last paragraph in particular would mention Putnam, which might make sense for you to relate to Quine in the same way the article relates Kornblith (though without drawing your own conclusions; both of your citations should be able to establish the connection). Along the same lines, if you hadn't already planned on it you might want to put the new section between Quine and Kornblith (chronologically) and copy-edit your section and maybe the section on Kornblith to make sure they still make sense in how their sources relate to Quine.

Good luck to you guys! AlexGiesting (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)