699:
vibration (they have magnetic spin, and UV characteristics other than IR characteristics). We are selecting of those many properties only a specific type of property (thermal vibration/temperature/IR properties) in an attempt to see whether, by keeping track of this one property which is similar in both the hot and cold materials, we can efficiently PREDICT how this property will vary with time (this is essentially deeply tied into the idea that there is some information-theoretic âeconomy of analysisâ which enables us to mathematically predict how it is that the temperature might evolve with time, we the rate of heat transfer between the two thermally different objects being proportional to their temperature difference). If we couldnât predict how temperature would evolve with time, then the scientific method would not be so successful and we would not think so highly of scientific objectivity. I suppose the implicit assumption within the specific instance of this experiment is that, if the two objects are identical in all respects (ie: all the other properties such as magnetic spin, etc⌠are _controlled_ for), then it is not possible for these other properties to affect the temperature of the object (which may be a suspect assumption). Or, rather, it is most likely that the evolution of heat transfer between the two materials in our experiment is due to those properties which are DIFFERENT between the two objects, rather than properties which we would suppose are unrelated to the specific property (or âobjectâ) under consideration. Anyhow, the above argumentation probably seems fuzzy. But, to be fair, paragraph 3 doesnât actually provide examples or more thorough explanation of the problems associated with
Scientific objectivity (I think that it criticises something called ârational framingâ â the way in which individuals create conceptual frameworks within their minds concerning how events are scientifically & causally related to each other â something which will ultimately be similar in all homo sapiens due to their evolutionary nature).
452:
impossible. The breakdown of positivsm and the emphesis on the priority of theories has only served to emphesis how a scientist who is totally detatched from a conceptual scheme will have no means of discriminating between pairs of realities. Science without concepts is blind. The objectivity it has to aim at is not the detatchment of the umpire, who supports nether side, but the objectivity of the searcher after truth, who is only concernerd to discover what is in fact the case. There is no virtue in being detatched from true theory. The problem is knowing which one it is. The desire for a neutral point of view beyond all theories is mistaken. It can only serve to foster the idea that objective truth is imposible to come by. If truth in science is a property of theory, we arrive at the absurd conclusion that objectivity and truth, so far from being virtually synonmous are in fact opposed to each other.
703:
I would say that the article provides UNDUE weight to this paragraph by placing it so prominently within the introduction, and by not explaining in sufficient detail the criticisms it offers of
Scientific Objectivity. It seems a bit too subjectivist to me - though I liked reading it, as it offered intelligent criticism. Still, the article should make some reference to something that everyone contributing to wikipedia will be aware of - that without the Scientific Method, and the Scientific Objectivity which are the centrality of that method, all of the computers, hard disk drives and technologies which that paragraph could be read as having criticised would not have come into existence. And these are usually held as "good".
913:"Footnotes" section can be used for brief, direct inline citations (like source and page #) and other notes, and the "References" section is intended as a place to add full references used to build the article. I've also rearranged the sources that were lumped together under the former "Literature" section, splitting them between the "Further reading" and "References" sections. The way I've structured things, those sources listed under "Further reading" are not, as yet, referred to anywhere in the article as far as I can tell, and those listed under "References" are referred to in the article.
675:'. Verifiability is not described in the wikipedia as a scientific concept of induction, but an IT concept of deduction. So it is not in line with Popper to link to it from `scientific objectivity', i.e. from this page. I used `testability' as replacement, not `falsifiability', because `testability' refers to a goal, but `falsifiability' to a method of achieving that goal or a conviction about how the goal can be achieved. So `testability' is a more general term. This also means that I do not agree to merge `falsifiability' and `testability'.
1085:
695:
paragraph would justify its length as relates to the rest of the article. Let us suppose that the OBJECT under consideration is temperature variation and the rate of heat transfer between two bodies made of the same material but of differing temperatures (I have been liberal in my interpretation of the notion of âobjectâ â if this is not what is meant by object, then perhaps the article should DEFINE what it means by a scientific object).
295:
1018:
Euclid's optics one draws rays from the eye to the object of vision. Here one also finds that an ideal is projected onto the object. But there appears to be a form of objectivity acting there too in the sense that one proceeds from knowns to unknowns or expresses unknowns in terms of what is more accurately known. One builds up from one's foundation or philosophical ground and one makes projections based on what is held to be true.
380:
102:
81:
327:
50:
21:
197:
170:
207:
1101:
998:
the elimination of some of the irrelevant stuff). I will come back and do this at some point when I have time, if someone else doesn't. There is perhaps also a need to distinguish more clearly -- maybe in the lead section -- how objectivity in science is different than other kinds of objectivity. --
842:
Kuhn's book is not just a historical 'story' of science, but a perspective from the
Philosophy of science on what some might call the 'historical logic' of science, which is a rather relevant topic if you think about (philosophical) theories of the progress of thought or knowledge. Popper's book is a
702:
The clothed criticism of
Paragraph 3 doesnât, for instance, provide some type of mathematical formalism which would try to indicate HOW subjective interpretations/methods of framing might enable separate individuals to reach different conclusions about the same scientific âobjectâ being analysed. So
888:
This section is in critical need of clarification, simplification, organization, and citations, as is the entire article. For starters, I have added two sentences at the very beginning of the lead section. I hope this will start to give an easy-to-read sense of the overall meaning of objectivity in
1134:
The
History section claims that the concept of scientific objectivity began with Francis Bacon. I very much doubt that, and strongly suspect that the concept was used in the natural sciences long before that person was born, perhaps as far back as antiquity. Thus it would be nice for someone with
997:
Perhaps a better way of organizing some of the information on objectivity in science could be to amalgamate some of the sections here into a single one on how objectivity is put into practice in science (in addition to making it more readable, adding citations, and perhaps eliminating or discussing
939:
I've begun a new sub-section under the "Critiques of scientific objectivity" section in order to address Donna
Haraway's important and well-known critique of objectivity, which is also a re-thinking of the concept of objectivity that proposes a new way to think about doing science and understanding
694:
Paragraph 3) This paragraph should provide an example of a situation within which it is possible for applications of the scientific method to yield subjective outcomes. I sense a SMALL element of truth to what the introduction sections says, but I doubt that the quantitative DEGREE of truth of the
451:
The objectivity which seems to be guaranteed by a God's-eye view itself suggests a form of detatchment. One of the prized vitues of science is its objectivity, its apparent willingness to be led by evidence alone and not by by prejudice. Yet even here absolute detatchment form all points of view is
916:
The reason for all this is that I plan to add a section to the article under "Critiques of scientific objectivity" (which I have also renamed from the former "Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity") in which I would like to add inline citations which will appear in the "Footnotes" and
720:
I agree, this article is pretty much wrong in every facet imaginable. It's quite clear this article was written by someone who has little to no understanding of science. In its tirade against science, the author invokes accusations of bias, corruption, and other conspiracy theories. The article
526:
I would argue that the most informativ e experiments are the simple ones. It's not the experiment that counts but the ideas that lead to the experiment. A good example is the idea that a feather and hammer will fall at the same rate (assuming no air friction). Remember they did that experiment on
1017:
Ancient philosophy saw man as the measure of all things. We see it as somewhat subjective today and a little at odds with the modern perspective. In ancient astronomy and optics the viewer's perspective takes precidence. In astronomy the Earth is taken to be the center of the solar system. And in
857:
I don't quite understand whether you have in mind a reduction of 'scientific objectivity' to 'philosophical' (whatever they are) ideas. I think that if you want to remove content, you should actually state the reason why to do so (indeed, e.g. the section on fraud might not be substantial for the
698:
It what way could one legitimately suppose that the selection of temperature is subjective? One argumentation would be that the atoms and particles (which are ultimately of a quantum nature) of which the material is made from exhibit MANY other properties besides those associated with thermal
912:
I've changed the section "Literature" to "Further reading" and added sections entitled "Footnotes" and "References," in order to represent and distinguish between the various sources that are currently being used and might be used in the future. (See
Knowledge's various style guides.) The
892:
I unfortunately don't have the necessary time (or the experience with the social environment of editing
Knowledge articles) to substantively edit the lead section at this time. However, as part of an educational project I am involved with, I will be contributing other substantive edits, the
392:
846:
Measurement in general, more concrete e.g. the representational theories of measurement, plays a rather strong role not just in the applied sciences, but in theory of science and particular scientific theories. Even for most scientists there is not much 'obvious' about
721:
says "Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized." No, problems arise from not understanding the limits of using quantitative analysis of experimental observations as a basis for
465:
But at least that Trigg character understands sophistry and attempts to deceit his readers. Thank you for respecting our mental faculties, Mr. Trigg. Most postpodernists mostly produce tubs upon tubs of incoherent verbal diarrhea for internal consumption.
1033:. Objectivity expresses itself in measurements relative to the grid although throughout every step of the process relatively subjective measurements are made from individual positions and adjusted for inconsistencies among the grid measurements.
858:
concept, but it might encyclopaedically be important for the lemma e.g. as a differentiating factor ("not everyone can just claim and pretend")). If you would like to try and expand or clarify on the ideas in the article, I'd say you're welcome.
458:
Uh-um. Trigg's
Argument 1. "Objectivity - willingness to be led by evidence alone and not by prejudice.. suggests a form of detachment" 2. BUT, "Absolute detachment from all points of view is impossible" 3. THEREFORE, objectivity is impossible
795:
appears to introduce a theory of psychology in objectivity - but offers no supporting evidence and does not say why it is relevant to the main subject. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political viewpoint of science.
1036:
The basic approach seems to have been to base one's knowledge on the best data that one has available. But
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem to have moved away from this position and have adopted a more subjective view of the world.
853:
You have given no hint as to which political agenda you do see followed (and in which way) in this article. However, some of the inclusions you reduce to alleged agendas are of central importance to the concept of objectivity in
776:
is irrelevant to the subject. It discusses a book on the history of science and Popper's hypothesis-falsification philosophy. Its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political theory rather than to enlighten the reader.
959:
This article also needs a history section, which I would like to come back and write when I have time, if someone else doesn't write one in the mean time. I will base it on Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's important book
806:
But the worst part is the beginning. The article dives straight into a confusing discussion on measurement which contains most of the original research and unverified claims referred to in the top box.
1198:
611:
The whole approach to this subject is quite primitive. It is useless without mentioning post-marxian materialistic philosophies and discussing, for instance, the term objective reality.
602:
I know it isn't fashionable, but this article needed some balance from the wooly headed pomo brigade. So I added it. Objectivity isn't the slam dunk that Sokal and Dawkins think it is.
1183:
462:
The logical flaw: unstated, unsupported and unproved assertion that "detachment from all points of view" is necessary in order "to be led by evidence alone and not by prejudice".
31:
813:
I further suggest that we should support the merging of this article with Objectivity-Philosophy. That way this article could be re-written in a short paragraph or two. --
1188:
497:
Isn't testing predicated upon there being an individual scientist around to witness a result? If so, wouldn't that make any sentence containing the above clause entirely
1193:
228:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1178:
1163:
152:
142:
920:
Further, the formatting style of the listed sources was inconsistent, so I have tried to make them a little more consistent by putting them in APA format. --
1173:
265:
255:
527:
the moon? Now that was simple AND dramatic! Also repeatable. I think the original form of this experiment was dome with different sized cannonballs.
850:
So-called biases that have been investigated in psychology do actually play an important role in science practice, as they do in methodology etc. etc.
645:. These have both been in place 60 days or more, with no discussion or movement on the proposals. This article now serves as a convenient link from
404:
118:
1158:
302:
180:
803:
is a statement of the obvious. While I appreciate that this does not necessarily make the section redundant, it could be far simpler and clearer.
1029:
representing an initial point and direction. Measurements are based on the standard unit of length. New positions are determined to establish a
839:, you should consider that philosophy and science do conceive sufficiently different of the notion "Objectivity" to justify different articles.
725:. (Ironically, the quoted sentence is guilty of over-generalization.) The author also uses a quote by Albert Einstein out of context as an
230:
1168:
1065:
473:
109:
86:
752:
618:
511:
The point is that it can be tested by mutliple people in different labs. Even people who are not scientists. Why is that a tautology?
843:
reaction to the concept of verification as in logical positivism, and constitutes a rather important idea on how science operates.
220:
175:
1093:
539:
I agree. Simplicity is the hallmark of all good things. However, as the world appears to be far from universally simple...
1089:
1021:
The same approach is used in modern science. Our measurements are based on standard units. In surveying one starts from a
788:
is on the entirely different subject of fraud. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political agenda.
710:
61:
493:
to make predictions that can be tested independent from the the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them
949:
818:
587:
27:
582:
I don't understand how the referenced line is a tautology. However, it appears this line has been withdrawn? --
1069:
1030:
869:
836:
638:
477:
756:
622:
1003:
983:
969:
945:
925:
898:
706:
814:
583:
523:
It's not. However, anything that can be trivially reproduced is, perhaps, of little value to start with.
1097:
832:
680:
335:
67:
810:
I suggest that this article needs to be re-written, beginning with a simple definition of objectivity.
1084:
1042:
748:
742:
730:
614:
469:
432:
964:
which is a historical account of how objectivity came to be such a highly-valued ethos in science.--
49:
20:
1061:
1022:
861:
726:
676:
784:
does not properly place objectivity in the context of the various scientific methods. The section
654:
117:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1119:
1026:
999:
979:
965:
941:
921:
894:
546:
531:
515:
412:
383:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
1135:
the knowledge of older works to add properly sourced information about the period before Bacon.
1140:
650:
642:
212:
326:
722:
603:
340:
1057:
1038:
573:
502:
428:
569:
396:
114:
828:
Maybe the article is not very good, but what improvements do you exactly have in mind?
294:
1152:
1115:
668:
543:
528:
512:
408:
1136:
1144:
1123:
1073:
1046:
1007:
987:
973:
929:
902:
876:
822:
760:
714:
684:
672:
657:
626:
606:
591:
576:
549:
534:
518:
505:
481:
436:
416:
379:
344:
1056:
Somewhere else on wikipedia the connection between scientific objectivity and
738:
734:
353:
225:
202:
1064:
has been mentioned. I think it would be a useful addition to this article.--
498:
101:
80:
940:
the natural world. If I have time, I will return and expand upon this.--
646:
348:
224:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
741:. Overall, it seems the author is either grossly ignorant, or lacks
427:
AfD. The AfD notice seems out of date and missing from the system. --
772:
I agree 100% with all the criticisms in the top box. The section on
196:
169:
321:
43:
15:
293:
572:, economics. Also: "All books are purely autobiographical"
542:
That is clear, otherwise science would be out of business.
361:
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in
1100:
during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available
454:
Rogger Trigg, Rationality and Science, Blackwell, 1993.
362:
1199:
Knowledge Ambassador Program student projects, 2011 Q3
793:
Objectivity in experimental set-up and interpretation
374:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
729:. The arguments used to attack objectivity reek of
113:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
276:
774:Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity
934:
1079:Knowledge Ambassador Program course assignment
1184:Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
568:Conclusion: business = science. See also The
8:
978:I have now added a short history section. --
612:
273:
164:
75:
1189:Philosophy of science task force articles
405:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
1092:at University of Knowledge supported by
1194:Articles linked from high traffic sites
1108:The above message was substituted from
637:I've removed the proposals to merge to
403:Above undated message substituted from
166:
77:
47:
1179:C-Class philosophy of science articles
1164:Low-importance Science Policy articles
234:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
935:Donna Haraway's "situated knowledges"
7:
782:The role of the scientific community
653:, perhaps among other articles. ...
554:As business would be out of science.
218:This article is within the scope of
127:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Policy
107:This article is within the scope of
893:discussion of which will follow. --
446:Heres a nice quote on the subject:
130:Template:WikiProject Science Policy
66:It is of interest to the following
1174:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
1088:This article is the subject of an
388:
384:
14:
745:. - A jaded ex-wikipedia user.
1083:
391:. Further details are available
378:
325:
240:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
205:
195:
168:
100:
79:
48:
30:on 2006 March 18. The result of
19:
1159:C-Class Science Policy articles
1052:Objectivity and open-mindedness
260:This article has been rated as
243:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
147:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1:
1130:Missing: History before Bacon
884:Lead section edit suggestions
831:As to the proposed merger of
607:23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
592:17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
121:and see a list of open tasks.
1098:Knowledge Ambassador Program
1074:20:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
1008:13:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
988:04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
974:14:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
950:19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
930:18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
903:16:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
786:Deliberate misrepresentation
737:(as mentioned), and perhaps
658:07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
577:17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
550:20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
535:17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
519:06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
506:23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
488:A quirky clause in the intro
417:05:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
1169:C-Class Philosophy articles
1124:16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
663:Verifiablity to testability
627:09:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
351:, a high-traffic website. (
1215:
1047:01:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
908:Organization of references
801:Objectivity in measurement
761:21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
266:project's importance scale
153:project's importance scale
110:WikiProject Science Policy
877:12:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
823:01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
715:13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
685:17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
598:Problems with Objectivity
482:09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
301:
272:
259:
190:
146:
95:
74:
993:Organization suggestions
837:Objectivity (philosophy)
690:Introductory Paragraph 3
639:Objectivity (philosophy)
437:09:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
1145:20:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
1013:The Objective Observer?
277:Associated task forces:
133:Science Policy articles
1090:educational assignment
917:"References" section.
298:
221:WikiProject Philosophy
56:This article is rated
1094:WikiProject Knowledge
833:Objectivity (science)
395:. Student editor(s):
336:Objectivity (science)
303:Philosophy of science
297:
731:Anti-intellectualism
363:its revision history
1062:scientific evidence
1023:fundamental station
727:Appeal to Authority
246:Philosophy articles
1111:{{WAP assignment}}
1102:on the course page
1027:principal meridian
707:ConcernedScientist
633:Merge-to proposals
393:on the course page
299:
231:general discussion
62:content assessment
751:comment added by
723:Regress arguments
651:scientific method
643:Scientific method
629:
617:comment added by
472:comment added by
371:
370:
366:
320:
319:
316:
315:
312:
311:
308:
307:
213:Philosophy portal
163:
162:
159:
158:
42:
41:
1206:
1126:
1113:
1112:
1087:
874:
868:
864:
763:
641:and to merge to
484:
419:
390:
386:
382:
360:
356:
333:On 2 June 2018,
329:
322:
284:
274:
248:
247:
244:
241:
238:
215:
210:
209:
208:
199:
192:
191:
186:
183:
172:
165:
135:
134:
131:
128:
125:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1149:
1148:
1132:
1110:
1109:
1107:
1081:
1058:open-mindedness
1054:
1015:
995:
957:
937:
910:
886:
870:
866:
862:
815:Stephenrwheeler
770:
768:Multiple issues
746:
692:
665:
635:
600:
584:Stephenrwheeler
490:
467:
444:
425:
402:
385:16 January 2019
376:
352:
282:
245:
242:
239:
236:
235:
211:
206:
204:
184:
178:
132:
129:
126:
123:
122:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
1212:
1210:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1181:
1176:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1151:
1150:
1131:
1128:
1080:
1077:
1066:89.120.156.224
1053:
1050:
1014:
1011:
994:
991:
956:
953:
936:
933:
909:
906:
885:
882:
881:
880:
863:Morton Shumway
859:
855:
851:
848:
844:
840:
829:
769:
766:
765:
764:
691:
688:
664:
661:
634:
631:
599:
596:
595:
594:
570:Dismal Science
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
489:
486:
474:165.124.99.119
456:
455:
443:
440:
424:
421:
375:
372:
369:
368:
330:
318:
317:
314:
313:
310:
309:
306:
305:
300:
290:
289:
287:
285:
279:
278:
270:
269:
262:Mid-importance
258:
252:
251:
249:
217:
216:
200:
188:
187:
185:Midâimportance
173:
161:
160:
157:
156:
149:Low-importance
145:
139:
138:
136:
124:Science Policy
119:the discussion
115:Science policy
105:
93:
92:
90:Lowâimportance
87:Science Policy
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1211:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1129:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:in accepting
1059:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:Christina1001
992:
990:
989:
985:
981:
980:Christina1001
976:
975:
971:
967:
966:Christina1001
963:
954:
952:
951:
947:
943:
942:Christina1001
932:
931:
927:
923:
922:Christina1001
918:
914:
907:
905:
904:
900:
896:
895:Christina1001
890:
883:
878:
875:
873:
865:
860:
856:
852:
849:
845:
841:
838:
834:
830:
827:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
811:
808:
804:
802:
797:
794:
789:
787:
783:
778:
775:
767:
762:
758:
754:
753:157.182.48.51
750:
744:
743:WP:good faith
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
719:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
689:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:verifiability
662:
660:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
632:
630:
628:
624:
620:
619:31.46.230.241
616:
609:
608:
605:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
553:
552:
551:
548:
545:
541:
540:
538:
537:
536:
533:
530:
525:
524:
522:
521:
520:
517:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
500:
495:
494:
487:
485:
483:
479:
475:
471:
463:
460:
453:
449:
448:
447:
441:
439:
438:
434:
430:
422:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
400:
398:
394:
389:24 April 2019
381:
373:
367:
364:
358:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
331:
328:
324:
323:
304:
296:
292:
291:
288:
286:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
257:
254:
253:
250:
233:
232:
227:
223:
222:
214:
203:
201:
198:
194:
193:
189:
182:
177:
174:
171:
167:
154:
150:
144:
141:
140:
137:
120:
116:
112:
111:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1133:
1106:
1082:
1055:
1035:
1020:
1016:
996:
977:
962:Objectivity,
961:
958:
938:
919:
915:
911:
891:
887:
871:
812:
809:
805:
800:
799:The section
798:
792:
791:The section
790:
785:
781:
780:The section
779:
773:
771:
705:
701:
697:
693:
666:
636:
613:â Preceding
610:
601:
567:
499:tautological
496:
492:
491:
468:â Preceding
464:
461:
457:
450:
445:
426:
401:
377:
359:
334:
332:
261:
229:
219:
148:
108:
68:WikiProjects
36:no consensus
35:
1031:grid system
747:âPreceding
673:testability
667:I changed `
604:ElectricRay
345:Julia Galef
1153:Categories
1039:Jbergquist
739:groupthink
735:relativism
574:Theavatar3
503:Theavatar3
442:Nice quote
429:Salix alba
423:AfD notice
237:Philosophy
226:philosophy
176:Philosophy
889:science.
397:Jjbaggins
341:mentioned
1116:PrimeBOT
1096:and the
854:science.
749:unsigned
677:Rumostra
615:unsigned
544:David D.
529:David D.
513:David D.
470:unsigned
409:PrimeBOT
28:deletion
1137:Jbohmdk
955:History
655:Kenosis
647:science
354:Traffic
349:Twitter
264:on the
181:Science
151:on the
58:C-class
1025:and a
671:' to `
547:(Talk)
532:(Talk)
516:(Talk)
64:scale.
1122:) on
835:into
1141:talk
1120:talk
1070:talk
1043:talk
1004:talk
984:talk
970:talk
946:talk
926:talk
899:talk
872:talk
819:talk
757:talk
711:talk
681:talk
649:and
623:talk
588:talk
478:talk
433:talk
413:talk
387:and
339:was
34:was
1114:by
1104:.
847:it.
407:by
347:on
343:by
256:Mid
143:Low
1155::
1143:)
1072:)
1045:)
1037:--
1006:)
986:)
972:)
948:)
928:)
901:)
821:)
759:)
733:,
713:)
683:)
625:)
590:)
501:?
480:)
435:)
415:)
399:.
283:/
179::
1139:(
1118:(
1068:(
1041:(
1002:(
982:(
968:(
944:(
924:(
897:(
879:.
867:â
817:(
755:(
709:(
679:(
621:(
586:(
476:(
431:(
411:(
365:.
357:)
268:.
155:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
