Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Proposal for criticisms

How do we feel about deeply covering criticisms of a topic at length on that topic's article page? See, for example, my extensive description of Daniel Dennett's criticisms of qualia. (The material has been changed a bit since I first posted it, but most of the work is mine.) It is certainly well-cited and attributed, and to the best of my knowledge NPOV, but is it too much? I think this would be a good test case for establishing the limits of what criticism should go where. &mdash; Adam Conover &dagger; 21:55, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Viewing this as a test case, it seems entirely appropriate. If there is legitimate controversy over an idea, a person looking it up is just as likely to be interested in criticism of it as in anything else. -- Jmabel 01:05, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this discussion, but it cuts across several things that have been niggling at the back of my mind about the Wiki. Banno

Firstly, I must say that it is entirely appropriate, indeed admirable, to engage in extended criticism of the sort in Qualia. It gives depth to the articles – a rare thing, as many articles are comparatively trivial. In addition, when done well, as in this case, it provides an insight into how philosophical criticism works. Except for present company, criticism is handled remarkably poorly throughout the Wikipedia. Authors and editors rarely understand such basic distinctions as that between validity and truth, and consider NPOV to be an excuse for writing the most palpable gibberish. This muck is often clearly identifiable because it includes weasel words – “some people think…” or “most real experts think…”Banno

But there is more to the case for presenting criticism than just this. Philosophers should be annoying. We have a responsibility to ask difficult questions, to demand that people justify their positions, to show where their point of view falls apart, and to bully, cajole, pester and snigger until they improve their argument. Socrates was the original Troll. The legion of Trolls failed because their criticisms are usually inane. But philosophers do at least understand the basic structures of arguments, and have a handle on the common fallacies, and at least a half-grasp of the way in which truth and meaning are used. In other words, we are good at criticism, and we ought to criticise. Banno 02:01, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys. Discussions like this make me more confident than ever that Wikipedia works. To put in my own two cents, I think that the discussion of criticism is especially valid in the case of qualia, since their very existence as discrete properties is very much up for debate. Still, there are probably cases in which whatever criticism exists is less credible or less notable (solipsist criticisms, for example), and it will take a lot of careful work to decide what is appropriate in what case. Of course, this is what Wiki is good at. It goes without saying, of course, that I would love specific input on the accuracy and NPOVness of my summary of Dennett's criticisms of qualia.


 * Regardless, should we perhaps include some sort of criteria in this proposal which summarizes the consensus here -- namely (as I see it) that the amount of space devoted to criticism of a particular topic should be in proportion to the degree of doubt there is over the status of that topic?   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 08:56, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * My only concern about this addition is: whose degree of doubt of over the status of that topic? As proposed, it reads like a pretty subjective criteria.  I think it can be pretty easily related to the standard we just voted on, though - if there are a bunch of philosophers arguing over a particular subject, there are going to be more acceptable (that is, referenced, or attributable to a philosopher) criticisms to add in the criticism section.  If there isn't much argument over the topic, there wont be much criticism that fits with the guidelines.  (Just woke up.  Sorry if this is unreadable!)  -Seth Mahoney 21:23, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion on the main WP page
Once this proposal is finalized, I suggest that we either add it to the main WikiProject Philosophy page as the first entry in a "Standards and Practices" section. Opinions? &mdash; Adam Conover &dagger; 08:56, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -Seth Mahoney 21:05, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Some doubts
I wonder how we can distinguish between original work and just reviewing? If I by pondering discover - just see - some weak points about some position, is that original rearch or just part of the careful exposition of that position? If I can't make a step without attributing it to someone then, it seems to me, the whole becomes dull and unreadable. I think that the presence of fellow philosophers makes it impossible to write philosophically unsubstantiated stuff. And on the other hand, the cooperative effort of philosophers is bound to generate something original. Isn't the originality of exposition original from the philosophical viewpoint too? But avoiding the originality of exposition would be violating someone's copyrights, am I wrong? Andres 12:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)