Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragmentalism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fragmentalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be OR/personal essay and may be a neologism, not quite sure as the ghits give a lot of usages in varying contexts. Asked for notability but couldn't work this out with sole editor of article so bringing it here. &rArr; bsnowball 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Only sources and reference are on blogspot?  Original research anyone?  Coren 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (See my comment below)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The creator of the fragmentalism article edits with a very strong anti-science POV. Other essays he has written should be examined.  As for fragmentalism, I can't find any reliable sources beyond the first cite in the article, and that is unavailable to non-subscribers.  If someone could find the abstract, or better yet quote relevant sections, it would help us evaluate it's reliability better.  Cheers, Skinwalker 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the recent edits to the article, I change my vote to keep. The newly cited material may find a better home at reductionism.  Skinwalker 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per above. Doczilla 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC) *Delete Not sure if this is a real concept, but if it is, it is written poorly-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed my mind after recent additions-- Sef rin gle Talk 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue here is not about how well written it is or if my views seem mildly antiscience to some strongly pro-science people, the main issue about deletion should be concerned to show whether this term is a neologism invented by me, and if it is a legitimate term used in academic discourse. If it can be shown that it is not a neologism invented by me and that it is a valid term then the article should stay. I believe it is possible to show this and below I present evidence that though it is not a commonly used term, it is a valid term used in intellectual discourse. The term appears to have first been coined by the American psychologist, Alexander Goerge Kelly [1905-1966] see Biographical notes

I present her some good examples of the use of this term: 1. "fragmentalism, which is that truth is collected piece by piece" 

2. "FRAGMENTALISM or REDUCTIONISM whole is equal to the sum of its parts whole is different from the sum of its parts that all things in nature are inter-dependent with each other...two opposing beliefs about how we come to know about nature." 

3. "This is why we WILL and ARE seeing fragmentalism taking over the world, except in the area of corporate consolidation, one of the very fuels toward the fragmentations."

4. "fragmentalism - the notion that knowledge is a growing collection of substantiated facts or "nuggets of truth", independent of human reconstruction." 

5. "every fragment has a memory of the whole,"

6. "individualistic and ethnocentrist fragmentalism" 

7. It was Alexander George Kelly, referred to above, who "suggested that his philosophy of constructive alternativism was an approach to science that was an alternative to the scientific method favoured by psychology, for which he coined the term accumulative fragmentalism." 

8. "The deviation from the principle of ameliorative equilibration takes the shapes of monotelism, fragmentalism, and reductionism" 

9. "We celebrate fragmentalism. He most assuredly did not."

10. "The three worldviews - fragmentalism, pragmatism, holism, - as identified by Greig, Pike and Selby (1989)" 

11. "Fragmentalism in knowledge is a natural response to professionalism and especialization out of which come the absence of overall conscious whole, of self-conscious attitudes and trends, of relevant critical theory and arguments against ever-increasing distance between professionals and real life,nature, social attitudes and the true-honest relationships of man with each other. Fragmentalism has, unfortunately, in one way or another, become 'scientific religion' of the academicians who are expert on one property or feature of man’s activities, actions, interactions or behaviour." 

12. "As a matter of fact, some have made public that the very creed of postmodernism is its declaration of "fragmentalism" as the real fate of man."

13. "...one of the most persistent themes up to 2020 will be judging the economical, financial, technical and scientifically globalization in opposition to fragmentalism maintained by the smaller cultures, so long neglected and now brought to life. Here are the reasons we have reserves about setting up global cultures or a regional culture, that is an European culture with an European consciousness - because it is essentially for any culture to underline the difference."

14. "That is the solution, not beating the worn out drum of fragmentalism which is european (reserved for Africa) by nature." 

15. "When a unitary and comprehensive outlook seems to be looking in on us in our unaccustomed state of heightened or vivified receptivity, we feel a disconcerting awareness, an overriding consciousness somehow posed over against our ordinary and less intense fragmentalism of cognition."

The term is also used in the following place:

1.

Concerning the article by M L Pope (ref 1 in article) see also: 

Overall, given this wide-ranging evidence, I think it is incontestible that the term 'fragmentalism' is NOT a neologism invented by me, that this article is thus not OR, and though it is not commonly used, 'fragmentalism' is certainly a legitimate term used in academic discourse in quite a wide range of disciplines. On that basis, I recommend the article should stay. I would further propose to see the article revised to include some of the above new material so as both to clarify it and to give it greater weight. Peter morrell 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite Although this is not a well-referenced article as it stands, this term does appear to be used in some parts of the philosophy of science. For example:
 * Andre Kukla Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S298-S305. It is also used in cognition under the term "accumulative fragmentalism". I will edit this page to remove the anti-science POV, and add higher-quality references. TimVickers 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've posted a request for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. TimVickers 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Bizarre as it is, and generally unknown as it is, this does seem to be a philosophical position that has been referred to, criticised and developed by a number of different professional philosophers in professionally recognised journals and books. Anarchia 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've further rewritten the article to make it clear that the most common usage is pejorative. TimVickers 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on rewrite.
 * this seems to me to make it clearer that we are dealing with, at best, synonym for the critical/'pejorative' use of 'reductionism', so don't see that it needs an article. tho with the caveat that i can't access the subscription only references (none of the others use the term in anything other than its normal dic. def. if they use it at all) perhaps putting the relevant quotes in the fns wld help.
 * second, we seem to have another coinage (definitely no neologism now:) "accumulative fragmentalism" which might deserve an article (tho at a single page of ghits i don't know) but is a little tangential here. see what others think, but i'm not sure it changes that much, sorry.  &rArr; bsnowball  15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to check the references yourself, send me an e-mail and I can send you copies of the Pdfs. Apart from that, if it is a term discussed in peer-reviewed journals, even just a few, then it easily passes the notability criteria. TimVickers 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * for verifiability it would be better if you quoted them in the article, then anyone can see for themselves. cld you also pls make it clear where you are summarising or quoting directly (the italics are confusing, are they meant to indicate direct quotes?) half the quotes (fn 3, 4 & 5) only use the the word fragmentary in its usual sense or don't use it at all. hence when looked at closely it now seems to be OR in the sense that the article is describing usage in primary sources instead of summarising definitions from secondary sources & again, there appears to be no difference between the claimed usage & reductionism. possibly closer should consider MERGEing on these grounds. &rArr; bsnowball  08:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a requirement in the policy, see Verifiability. I can provide copies of these references if you wish, but articles are more than an collection of quotations. TimVickers 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The rewrite is much better, and has sufficient references to establish the term as really used, if perhaps still marginal. Philosophy isn't my forte, so I defer validity to someone else, but the article now actually reads like it should be in an encyclopedia.  Coren 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Merging reductionism and fragmentalism is not a preferred option as these are two different things. Fragmentalism is the breaking up of the world into parts and the assumption that these parts are real. Reductionism also involves that but takes the parts and builds them into models and mechanisms and then assumes that these 'reduced' models comprise a fair representation of reality. Both involve assumptions and both are conceptual acts, but it is clear that they are sufficiently different from each other to keep them in separate places and under separate names. In point of fact reductionism is the secondary conceptual act and fragmentalism is the primary. Thus if anything it is reductionism that should be merged under fragmentalism and not the other way round. They both underpin the modern scientific worldview that has spawned such things as the Periodic Table of elements, the Linnean taxonomy of living organisms, the anatomical names of body parts, the features of the Moon, the names of planetary bodies, the names of continents and countries, etc, etc. On this basis, I would say the suggestion is not therefore tenable. Peter morrell 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting --Pgreenfinch 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.