599:
subject of meta-ontology, rather than the whole article being just a coatrack per the
Knowledge (XXG) definition of coatrack article. However, objecting that proposed material is not sufficiently related to the topic of the article is a legitimate objection and it seems that the burden for giving evidence that it is sufficiently related is on the editor who is proposing the addition. Since that issue probably won't be settled between the two of you, an RfC might be useful. If you do have an RfC, try to distill the dispute to the simplest form regarding just one specific and limited amount of material, so that potential commenters aren't discouraged from commenting because of TL;DR. --
740:"meta" thing is a characteristic of one school of thought anyway. Even if it was so established then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack. Any article on an area of philosophy summarises the domains concerns, it does not elaborate the debates with multiple quotations. That material (without the excessive quotation and synthesis you are prone to) belongs in specific articles. Please address the points made by other editors rather than your straw man assumptions as to their motivations ----
549:
would be helpful, but he also admits that this is not universal by any means. It also doesn't appear as such a division in most of the encyclopaedias, directories etc. So it has not really come on the radar other than within a subset of those who focus on linguistics and logic. That means that subsuming wider philosophical issues under its banner is problematic. What we need is something which explains how the term is used, makes it clear where it is used and references other articles as appropriate. ----
178:
213:
22:
1237:
material concerns the "Realism"-section, which previously only mentioned the difference between the neo-Aristotelian approach and the
Quinean approach in passing. The comment on the Carnap-Quine debate seemed to be out of context since the debate wasn't mentioned anywhere before. I moved it to the "Anti-realism"-section and provide some context to it concerning Carnap's anti-realism.
80:
53:
90:
390:"To figure this out is the task of meta-ontology, which strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed.
688:. That is your view. That is the basis for all your objections. It has gone nowhere. So put this view of insignificance aside, and focus instead on making this the most complete and authoritative article on meta-ontology available on the web, whatever its importance in the world of ontology. Making the article
1052:
different words used for the same ideas, but mainly this is due to the philosophy of the times which imagines itself to be the only metaphysics of all possible metaphysics. The consequence is that terms like metaphysics-ontology lose distinction and collapse into the same meaning, the search for existence.
533:, it seems like meta-ontology is a term that is used enough by reliable sources to make it a valid and descriptive title for this article. If there is any reliable source that has questioned the appropriateness of using the term, it might be helpful to come forward with the link for this discussion. --
1051:
It should be immediately clear to anyone editing
Metaphysics, Ontology, Meta-metaphysics, or Meta-ontology that not only did the publisher not understand the distinction between metaphysics and ontology, but neither do the majority of professional philosophers. Partially, the reason is just language,
324:
Snowded: It is a non-issue. If some people prefer to talk of 'cattle' and others prefer to break it up into 'beef cattle', 'dairy cattle', etc. so what? That doesn't change the adopted meaning of the sub-field of 'meta-ontology' and does not imply some striking revelation about 'ontology'. Its just a
307:
Is it? As far as I remember the idea that there is a portion of
Ontology now designed meta-ontology is by no means universal. Its not even mentioned as a subject in many of the reference works. Unless and until something changes in that the use is confined to a limited number of authors within one
1055:
This thinking is parochial. There are differences between possible and developed metaphysical systems based on the fundamental logic employed, and on the target application of the systems. Parmenides, Plato's Ideas, some
Pythagoreanisms, Plato's Realism, Aristotle's Realism all use binary logic with
1046:
Metaphysics asks questions about existence: for example, do numbers really exist? Metametaphysics asks questions about metaphysics: for example, do its questions have determinate answers? If so, are these answers deep and important, or are they merely a matter of how we use words? What is the proper
890:
Well, meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosphers, some of whom simply use the term a few of whom assert it is a useful sub-division of
Ontology. It follows that material should illustrate the use of the term, but should not be an extended essay on the subject.
548:
That is not in question Bob. It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack. Hofweber suggests that seeing meta-ontology as one of the divisions of ontology
425:
I am very glad to have found this page as I am doing some very extensive research into philosophy of mind, and for philosophy of mind meta-ontology is a useful term and does not need to be deleted. If this entry adds to the categorization of ontology into more useful and usable subcategories then it
649:
Again not true Brews. There are a small number of us who work on these articles. When you have got engagement through an RfC you never been backed in your views. Your aggressive attitude to editors who disagreed with you in those RfCs further discourages engagement. Look at the way you handled
860:
Interested in how you think we can get the article to some semblance of relevance Bob. There is a lot of coatrack stuff there. At the end of the day I don't think that we have more than 2/3 paragraphs. Happy to ride with that as a short article, but not with something that ends up as a general
634:
Bob: The problem here is that there are no editors on WP with strong interest in the subject. Most philosophy articles were written in 2006-2007 and have only been tweaked ever since because there just aren't editors around that have any desire for more extensive engagement. That leaves
Snowded as
598:
I wouldn't call this a coatrack article since it legitimately discusses the subject of meta-ontology. I personally did a major edit of a section "Linguistic frameworks" which you seemed to approve. It seems that your objection has to do with adding material that is not sufficiently related to the
1236:
My last edit was rather big so, I'll go over some of the things I added/changed and why I added/changed them. The previous lead-section lacked a proper definition which I added. I split the "Overview"-section into 3 sections: "Relation to ontology", "Realism" and "Anti-realism". Most of the added
934:
It not used as a term in any of the major directories and one of the sources admits its use is controversial. Essay like is nothing to do with sources there or not, its style. I'm open to adding some sections on subjects with references where people are talking about meta-ontology, your earlier
472:
If you check the article Brews you will see he admits the use is not universal but he finds it useful. No one is contesting its use by some philosophers, its your assumption that it is an established sub-division which is the issue. My original comment stands, including the observation that you
739:
The merge proposal has three for and two against Brews. Given its not overwealming I haven't pressed it. Your trotting out the same references just makes my point. Yes the term is used no question about that. However it is not established as a subset within the field as a whole and the whole
613:
Bob, you proposed what seemed like a reasonable compromise. As we know it was rejected. There comes a time when legitimate explanation goes too far and qualifies as a coatrack. If you read Brews comment he considered meta-ontology to be the same thing as ontology so he is pursuing the line of
1075:
As one with a sincere interest in relational ontology, process ontology, and process-relational ontology, I was bothered by the fact that these were not mentioned in this article, which describes ontology as mainly a matter of which kinds of entities "exist" and do not "exist". That's a pretty
891:
That belongs in ontology (which is established as a term, exists in directories etc.). Thus most of the discussion of the Q-C debate should therefore be reduced to a few sentences for example. I am suggesting we work to do something like that, or possibly open the RfC again on the merge ----
618:
and which was rejected there. I've run out of patience with this over multiple articles, including his setting up new articles with material rejected elsewhere. If someone whats to raise a fifth RfC around Brews edits fine. I suspect he is likely to get sanctioned before much happens there
1059:
Wikipedians have a problem. We are bound by what is commonly accepted in peer-reviewed literature. When a crucial issue is rarely raised, then references, which do exist, are difficult to unearth. That difficulty should not mean that we must bury the crucial issue as well.
676:
Snowded: You continue to state over and over that the work described by those that do use the term 'meta-ontology' must be proven notable or dropped. You continue to suggest it is a term used only by some insignificant minority whose opinions are best left out of WP.
347:, which is the point of your merge proposal on this page. I think the subject of 'meta-ontology' has plenty of activity and it is already decided that it is notable enough to warrant its own article. If you really want to introduce a deletion proposal, then do so.
365:
conclusion drawn from use of the term by some authors within one part of one tradition in the field. Your
Hofweber reference contradicts your position by the way, a similar misunderstanding as evidenced in your speculation as to the motives of other editors.
566:
Re "It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack." — I looked up what "coatrack" means in
Knowledge (XXG) at
950:
Re "I'm open to adding some sections on subjects with references where people are talking about meta-ontology, your earlier edit for example." — If that's the case, I don't understand why you just deleted it, i.e. the section "Linguistic frameworks".
1001:. As the author says (while providing it as background for her own deflationary reconstruction) it's easily dismissed on two accounts, that no cares what "logical internal" discussions are about and the "factual internal" distinction is just quaint
965:
Cause it was imbedded in a whole bunch of other stuff. If we are going to put in a "subjects discussed" type section then lets get it in there along with a few others. My goal was to get back to something sustainable then rebuild
755:
So, "even if it was so established then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack." Snowded, you've already got a Plan B ready in case the blockade of Plan A fails. As for this Plan B, a general article, like
488:
I have made no claims about how 'established' the terminology is. Like
Hofweber, utility is enough for me. And it is found useful by a great many authors. Propose deletion or drop the subject - it is a non-issue otherwise.
473:
generally fail to bother to read what does not agree with your then assumed position. Agree there is no point in arguing with you on this, but until you are prepared to engage there will be no progress ----
1056:
non-contradiction, yet are quite distinct. Modern philosophy ignores these fundamental metaphysical differences, and seeks ontological solutions, which will tend not to fit within the logical constraints.
908:
Re "meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosophers" — Since I don't know of any reliable source that agrees with or disputes your claim, I can't really discuss that with
915:
I think the article should be organized in terms of ideas, rather than people such as Carnap and Quine. That's one reason that I titled a section I worked on "Linguistic frameworks", rather than Carnap.
325:
classification of topics, like an 'in-box' and an 'out-box' separates the 'mail'. Apparently some feel that this division is not useful, like yourself, and others think it is a useful subdivision, like
760:
say, introduces pages on subtopics, and so covers some of the same ground. However, it is also supposed to provide perspective on how these topics relate to each other and to the main topic. Likewise,
650:
Bob's attempt to help. Few want to engage in extended and lengthy discussions that are appropriate with under graduate students exploring a subject, but not with editing an encyclopaedia ----
1136:
1126:
1116:
392:
Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. Many of the philosophically most fundamental questions about ontology really are meta-ontological questions.
912:
Re "essay", I thought that was a term in Knowledge (XXG) that is used for a page that contains editors' own ideas, rather than an article that is based on reliable sources.
111:
on Knowledge (XXG). 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:
1174:
1160:
185:
63:
148:
997:
Oh I see why you went ahead and tried to include that section by itself... It doesn't work because it needs to be a summary of the relevant Carnap background,
1275:
1265:
138:
1137:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
1127:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
1117:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
1270:
692:
all that it can be is not slap in the face for ontology or for WP or for you. It's just an article on a facet of ontology that has the attention of
1280:
1260:
113:
1140:
1130:
1120:
701:
935:
edit for example. For the moment I have simplified it and removed the tags. Hopefully we can build up from there in a more sensible manner ----
796:
fit this description. It is alarming that you are so opposed to this article that you are already arranging your second line of obstruction.
361:
Then show me a reference Brews, something that supports your view of the term as an established sub-division. At the moment all we have is
834:
697:
103:
58:
998:
1156:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
329:. We don't need unanimity on the utility of a subdivision to discuss the subject area as it is defined by those who use the term.
1146:
33:
765:
442:
769:
1221:
259:
254:
249:
242:
237:
232:
292:
772:
among others so as to put the whole together in relation to its parts. That is not coatracking. It's doing its job.
705:
1006:
381:
As I said, Snowded - go ahead and propose deletion. There is no point in arguing with you in this thread. As for
1177:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
271:
1141:
http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
1131:
http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
1121:
http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
382:
326:
426:
is doing precisely what a public forum should do, encourage thinking and or re-thinking of stale categories.
39:
21:
709:
1212:
1108:
830:
822:
430:
344:
1104:
1081:
721:
1196:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1184:
826:
801:
729:
640:
494:
463:
413:
352:
334:
1107:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1077:
776:
568:
308:
tradition within Philosophy. You can't assume their position by using the article to advance it. ----
1065:
986:
956:
921:
881:
851:
604:
538:
434:
438:
277:
1181:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
503:
You're the one who wants to add material Brews, find supporting references or give up on it ----
1197:
1242:
1147:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111028135407/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf
95:
717:
797:
725:
636:
490:
459:
409:
348:
330:
273:
212:
1204:
1061:
1002:
982:
952:
917:
877:
847:
600:
534:
530:
1163:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1203:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1170:
1150:
818:
Sections of this article have been merged to 'Ontology' in a subsection of that page.
177:
1254:
1100:
793:
761:
733:
689:
542:
446:
318:
1238:
967:
936:
892:
862:
741:
651:
620:
550:
504:
474:
367:
309:
713:
579:
1169:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
861:
discussion of what a few philosophers think is a sub-division of Ontology ----
757:
615:
108:
85:
343:
What you are really trying to do here, Snowded, is to raise the subject of
693:
685:
275:
107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
1246:
1226:
1085:
1069:
1011:
990:
976:
960:
945:
925:
901:
885:
871:
855:
838:
805:
750:
660:
644:
629:
608:
559:
513:
498:
483:
467:
417:
399:
Thomas Hofweber, Logic and Ontology: Different conceptions of ontology
376:
356:
338:
79:
52:
588:
783:
discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a
684:
that the whole subject be reduced to a mention in the article
278:
206:
15:
176:
1111:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1076:
narrow, and very incomplete, understanding of ontology.
458:
So much for my 'misunderstanding' and 'speculation", eh?
586:, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related
792:
There is no way that any of the proposed additions to
876:
It's not clear to me what problems you're seeing. --
303:
Digression on acceptance of the term 'meta-ontology'
1173:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1151:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf
159:
764:needs to address the various facets discussed in
388:
1159:This message was posted before February 2018.
286:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
117:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG).
19:
156:
47:
1099:I have just modified 4 external links on
1038:The cover description for the anthology
49:
1092:External links modified (January 2018)
296:when more than 5 sections are present.
123:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy
7:
681:
101:This article is within the scope of
1276:Low-importance metaphysics articles
785:tangentially related biased subject
38:It is of interest to the following
1266:Low-importance Philosophy articles
779:is a Knowledge (XXG) article that
578:is a Knowledge (XXG) article that
14:
1103:. Please take a moment to review
1047:methodology for their resolution?
290:may be automatically archived by
1271:Start-Class metaphysics articles
846:Undone part re this article. --
211:
88:
78:
51:
20:
1281:Metaphysics task force articles
1261:Start-Class Philosophy articles
143:This article has been rated as
126:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
1232:Restructured and added content
766:analytic-synthetic distinction
1:
999:Internal–external distinction
770:internal-external distinction
635:the lone voice to deal with.
529:At the risk of violating the
385:, it is you who misread him:
1247:07:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
1227:14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
447:22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
302:
1086:17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
1070:00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
1297:
1190:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1096:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
682:proposed on this Talk page
614:argument he first made on
149:project's importance scale
839:19:57, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)
806:15:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
751:06:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
734:05:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
645:15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
630:14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
609:13:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
560:05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
543:01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
514:20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
499:20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
484:20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
468:20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
418:20:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
377:19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
357:19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
339:19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
319:19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
184:
155:
142:
73:
46:
1012:15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
991:07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
977:07:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
961:07:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
946:07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
926:06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
902:04:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
886:23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
872:22:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
856:13:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
661:04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
160:Associated task forces:
402:
293:Lowercase sigmabot III
181:
104:WikiProject Philosophy
28:This article is rated
1034:Proposal for Deletion
180:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1171:regular verification
1161:After February 2018
129:Philosophy articles
1215:InternetArchiveBot
1166:InternetArchiveBot
814:Merged to Ontology
777:WP:Coatrackarticle
182:
114:general discussion
34:content assessment
1191:
1042:goes like this:
975:
944:
900:
870:
842:
825:comment added by
749:
659:
628:
558:
512:
482:
450:
433:comment added by
375:
317:
300:
299:
265:
264:
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:
194:
191:
190:
96:Philosophy portal
1288:
1225:
1216:
1189:
1188:
1167:
1009:
974:
972:
943:
941:
899:
897:
869:
867:
841:
819:
748:
746:
706:Allspector-Kelly
658:
656:
627:
625:
576:coatrack article
557:
555:
511:
509:
481:
479:
449:
427:
400:
374:
372:
316:
314:
295:
279:
229:
228:
215:
207:
167:
157:
131:
130:
127:
124:
121:
98:
93:
92:
91:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1251:
1250:
1234:
1219:
1214:
1182:
1175:have permission
1165:
1109:this simple FaQ
1094:
1040:Metametaphysics
1036:
1007:
1003:verificationism
968:
937:
893:
863:
820:
816:
742:
652:
621:
584:nominal subject
551:
531:Prime directive
505:
475:
428:
401:
398:
368:
310:
305:
291:
280:
274:
220:
165:
128:
125:
122:
119:
118:
94:
89:
87:
67:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1294:
1292:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1263:
1253:
1252:
1233:
1230:
1209:
1208:
1201:
1154:
1153:
1145:Added archive
1143:
1135:Added archive
1133:
1125:Added archive
1123:
1115:Added archive
1093:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1049:
1048:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
995:
994:
993:
929:
928:
913:
910:
827:50.164.202.78
815:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
790:
789:
788:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
596:
595:
594:
582:discusses the
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
423:
422:
421:
420:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
396:
341:
304:
301:
298:
297:
285:
282:
281:
276:
272:
270:
267:
266:
263:
262:
257:
252:
246:
245:
240:
235:
222:
221:
216:
210:
201:
200:
197:
196:
193:
192:
189:
188:
183:
173:
172:
170:
168:
162:
161:
153:
152:
145:Low-importance
141:
135:
134:
132:
100:
99:
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1293:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1231:
1229:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1186:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:Meta-ontology
1097:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1057:
1053:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1033:
1013:
1010:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
973:
971:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
949:
948:
947:
942:
940:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
914:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
898:
896:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
868:
866:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
813:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:Meta-ontology
791:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
771:
767:
763:
762:Meta-ontology
759:
754:
753:
752:
747:
745:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:Meta-ontology
687:
683:
678:
662:
657:
655:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
633:
632:
631:
626:
624:
619:however. ----
617:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
597:
592:
590:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
570:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
556:
554:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
515:
510:
508:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
487:
486:
485:
480:
478:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
419:
415:
411:
408:
395:
393:
387:
386:
384:
380:
379:
378:
373:
371:
364:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:WP:Notability
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
322:
321:
320:
315:
313:
294:
289:
284:
283:
269:
268:
261:
258:
256:
253:
251:
248:
247:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
230:
227:
224:
223:
219:
214:
209:
208:
205:
187:
179:
175:
174:
171:
169:
164:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
140:
137:
136:
133:
116:
115:
110:
106:
105:
97:
86:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1235:
1213:
1210:
1185:source check
1164:
1158:
1155:
1098:
1095:
1078:Jrivermartin
1058:
1054:
1050:
1039:
1037:
1008:Machine Elf
981:Good bye. --
969:
938:
894:
864:
821:— Preceding
817:
784:
780:
743:
724:and others.
679:
675:
653:
622:
587:
583:
575:
552:
528:
506:
476:
429:— Preceding
424:
391:
389:
369:
362:
311:
306:
287:
225:
217:
204:
144:
112:
102:
40:WikiProjects
798:Brews ohare
726:Brews ohare
637:Brews ohare
571:and found,
569:WP:Coatrack
491:Brews ohare
460:Brews ohare
410:Brews ohare
349:Brews ohare
331:Brews ohare
186:Metaphysics
64:Metaphysics
30:Start-class
1255:Categories
1222:Report bug
983:Bob K31416
953:Bob K31416
918:Bob K31416
878:Bob K31416
848:Bob K31416
781:ostensibly
758:Philosophy
616:Philosophy
601:Bob K31416
580:ostensibly
535:Bob K31416
120:Philosophy
109:philosophy
59:Philosophy
1205:this tool
1198:this tool
702:Thomasson
680:You have
260:Archive 6
255:Archive 5
250:Archive 4
243:Archive 3
238:Archive 2
233:Archive 1
1211:Cheers.—
1062:BlueMist
835:contribs
823:unsigned
686:Ontology
443:contribs
435:Astridjj
431:unsigned
383:Hofweber
327:Hofweber
218:Archives
1239:Phlsph7
1105:my edit
970:Snowded
939:Snowded
895:Snowded
865:Snowded
744:Snowded
654:Snowded
623:Snowded
591:subject
553:Snowded
507:Snowded
477:Snowded
370:Snowded
312:Snowded
288:30 days
147:on the
722:Putnam
718:Hirsch
714:Eklund
589:biased
36:scale.
710:Yablo
694:Price
226:Index
1243:talk
1082:talk
1066:talk
987:talk
966:----
957:talk
922:talk
909:you.
882:talk
852:talk
837:)
831:talk
802:talk
768:and
730:talk
698:Bird
641:talk
605:talk
539:talk
495:talk
464:talk
439:talk
414:talk
366:----
363:your
353:talk
335:talk
1179:RfC
1149:to
1139:to
1129:to
1119:to
775:"A
574:"A
139:Low
1257::
1245:)
1192:.
1187:}}
1183:{{
1084:)
1068:)
1005:.—
989:)
959:)
951:--
924:)
916:--
884:)
854:)
833:•
804:)
787:."
732:)
720:,
716:,
712:,
708:,
704:,
700:,
696:,
643:)
607:)
593:."
541:)
497:)
466:)
445:)
441:•
416:)
397:—
394:"
355:)
337:)
166:/
62::
1241:(
1224:)
1220:(
1207:.
1200:.
1080:(
1064:(
985:(
955:(
920:(
880:(
850:(
829:(
800:(
728:(
639:(
603:(
537:(
493:(
462:(
437:(
412:(
351:(
333:(
151:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
