31:
318:"An assembly of 249 distinguished philosophers have contributed to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy " . This type of book is extensively peer reviewed and they do provide authoritative sources as to what is notable. Yes the editor has the final say, but said editor has high status in the profession. ----
940:. In fact, there has been no discussion of Ryle on this Talk page to date, and Price has discussed Ryle at length. His introduction of two meanings for exist is called by Price 'use' and 'mention' and this classification is explicitly supported in Thomasson's work, which refers to Price in this connection.
880:
The Quine-Carnap debate and the two distinctions were issues in philosophy before anyone thought to use the term meta-ontology. They are subjects in their own right. This article is about meta-ontology and the interest is how authors use the term in contrast with those who just talk about ontology.
449:
Sorry Brews but the assertion that a single editor made all the decisions is derisory so LOL was mild. Its not clear what a definition of 'widely' would be here. The number of references is not that great. Happy to look at references where "meta-ontology" is specifically referenced under ontology,
270:
The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for
Philosophy. I used that as an illustration of the problem about notability. Brew's references show that the word has some use, but it has not yet reached the point where the subject deserves
988:
Why chose Ryle? More or less every modern philosopher and some not so modern have discussed this issue. You obviously intend to keep adding your own summary of philosophers (as you did with
Wittgenstein) and you are being obdurate in not recognising that the opposition is to th Ryle per se, but to
722:
No Brews, the article is already over extended beyone its subject. And stop casting aspersions, if you want to dig yourself a second wikipedia grave, to go with your physics one then I can't stop you but I advise against it. The issue is not the content one you are arguing, but the appropriateness
92:
Per my suggestion at the
Philosophy notice board. This subject does not appear in the Oxford Companion and the sourced material relates to a limited number of authors who appear to do no more than use the term. Given that we should depend on third party sources the notability of this as an article
180:
but, as
Hofweber (who holds this opinion) says: ", 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,
393:
accepts the major publishers as authoritative so if you are worried about wikipedia policy I think we are covered here, but you could take your "lone editor" (still amused by that) argument to the notice board. The simple fact remains that the subject of this article is not considered significant
413:
approach to comments is lamentable. A bit of respect for well-meant commentary would lead you to reply directly to points raised and avoid injection of derision as a ploy. A serous response would admit that meta-ontology is a widely used term as indicated in the many references provided in the
514:
Hofweber says: ", 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...
271:
mention in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The
Stanford example uses the word in an entry called "logic and ontology", it does not have a section by that name. Hofweber's opinion is also controversial and even he says that broadly construed this is a topic within ontology.
896:
Snowded: I'd agree that there is a minor point to address in the discussion between those who use the term 'meta-ontology' and those who do not. However, that topic is possibly more an historical question related to how recently this term has come into use. The main topic of
582:, a bias that has no basis as both aspects are important and much discussed in the philosophical literature, including in particular Thomasson, Eklund, Price, Bird, Hirsch, Putnam and other authors whose work is linked on this Talk page and in reverted material once found in
169:
619:
with that heading Brews. As it happens I restored the previous stable version which had words originally drafted by you. I did that on the grounds that the article is in large part a coatrack and you were making it worse not better. You seem to have a major
374:
There seems to be enough reliable sources and material on meta-ontology to support the existence of the article. Also, you haven't responded to Brews ohare's points regarding this. So I'm still opposed to your proposal. Thanks for the discussion. Regards,
303:
Re "The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for
Philosophy." ā It looks like there is only one editor who decides what goes into the work, not a large team from Oxford. Do you agree?
936:?' described by Ryle, Price, and Thomasson, along with the references to their work. There can be no doubt that this topic is the very definition of 'meta-ontology'. Nonetheless, Snowded's in-line justification for removal is that this material is
351:
Are you serious? A major review of a field, published by one of the worlds leading academic publishers with a huge team of editors, edited by a senior and respected professor? Are you really challenging it as an authority on the field?
661:
makes only the two inadvisable corrections mentioned here. From Talk-page discussion of your prior attempts to enforce these changes, you know that one of these changes is wrong, and the other ill-advised, but made them anyway.
134:
ontology has lots of activity and has sufficient notability to stand alone, despite
Snowded's continued attempts to curtail additions to it. As the article mentions, the term was coined in the 50's by Inwagen, and the
422:
discussed in some such works as a sub-topic under 'ontology', as is appropriate because meta-ontology is a sub-topic of ontology. There is considerable material pertaining to meta-ontology, as evidenced here and in
93:
is questionable. Meta-ethics, Meta-logic and others are in the Oxford
Companion so they are legitimate. Happy to withdraw the proposal if the subject does feature in equivalents to the Oxford Companion. ----
832:
In particular, it might explain how Quine misunderstood the relation between the two issues, leading to a long-standing confounding of their roles and of the arguments involved that has since been clarified by
905:
now carved out and designated by the term 'meta-ontology', and has little to do with an appraisal of who uses the term and who prefers to leave it lumped under the general auspices of ontology in the large.
417:
Your criterion that there isn't an independent article under the name 'meta-ontology' in some general encyclopedia is not the sole determinant of its importance. You ignore the fact that meta-ontology
256:, which is a list of very brief entries that the lone editor of that work has chosen. Doesn't seem like a good reason to merge. Also, I think the points in Brews Ohare's message need to be addressed. --
389:
LOL, I doubt you could find direct line evidence for any major book. An Editor (not the author mark you) with an editorial team of 249 Philosophers is I think clear evidence of peer review.
231:
Since the article has numerous sources, and Brews Ohare has given sources in his above message, I think you need to explain your remarks and address Brews Ohare's points. Thanks. --
213:. It doesn't seem important as a topic on its own. The lack of content supporting the term as a notable stand-alone term justifies merging it into the main ontology article.
563:. That matter has been pointed out to Snowded repeatedly, and yet he flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary to insist upon this wrong identification.
736:
The first of your two changes introduced an error; the second introduced bias. Corrections are entirely appropriate. Neither is an extension of the article.
829:
with an overview placing the two aspects in proper perspective relative to one another, providing a proper introduction to the separate articles.
842:
769:"Quine argued that there is no sharp differentiation between internal and external questions, and their separation in Carnap's sense is untenable.
642:, to understand that the objection is not necessarily to the content of your multiple additions but to the relevance to the article subject. ----
147:
450:
but not where it isn't but you think that is what they mean. Otherwise listing is not the sole determinant, but it is one significant one. ----
989:
your addition of coatrack material. I suggest for your own sake you self-revert until the wider issues is resolved. If you don't I will ----
961:?" Perhaps I need to point out that if one discusses the meaning and usage of 'exists', one is questioning the meaning of the question "What
632:. I have not reverted the minor change you made necessary, but the huge expansion of material is not accepted. If you want to remove the
333:
Re "This type of book is extensively peer reviewed..." ā I see no evidence that there is a peer-review system of referees operating for the
190:
and enough sources to consider, that it is better to break it out as an article in its own right rather than introduce a large sub-topic in
838:
667:
666:
is consistent with your policy evidenced over and over again on this Talk page directed toward eliminating sensible treatment of the
575:
165:
957:
It might need pointing out again that
Inwagen defined 'meta-ontology' as discussion of the question of what one means by "what
822:
791:
579:
560:
368:
334:
287:
253:
938:
selective addition of Ryle, per previous talk page comments this is nothing to do with explaining the subject of the article
826:
783:
544:
881:
In that respect If there is s substantive issue around different treatments it might be notable. Otherwise its not ----
72:
67:
59:
846:
969:. We can leave to another occasion the question of whether President Clinton was interested in meta-ontology when
38:
551:
and to the essay by
Inwagen that made the term 'meta-ontology' more popular. This is untrue, as a look at Quine's
511:
140:
153:
143:
in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is a topic discussed by several well known modern philosophers.
850:
543:
Snowded has changed the description in the lead paragraph to claim that it was Quine's analysis of Carnap's
275:
862:
548:
692:
is a direct reversion of my preceding two edits instating these changes and overriding my edit comments:
978:
948:
911:
870:
805:
741:
705:
679:
605:
591:
520:
496:
440:
199:
181:
more broadly construed... Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. "
609:
595:
380:
342:
309:
261:
236:
966:
657:
Snowded: Although very technically speaking your two changes 'restored a previous stable version',
218:
47:
17:
973:
the answers to some questions about himself "depend upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
625:
874:
809:
283:
858:
624:
issue with any editor here (or elsewhere) who disagrees with any of your various attempts at
974:
944:
907:
866:
801:
737:
701:
675:
601:
587:
516:
493:
436:
195:
633:
621:
616:
371:
is peer-reviewed by a system of referees. Sorry, but your opinion is not sufficient for me.
394:
enough to warrant an entry in this or any other equivalent authority that I have seen ----
376:
338:
305:
257:
232:
629:
390:
431:
where it can be discussed at length, rather than only as an abbreviated sub-section in
898:
818:
762:
671:
583:
428:
424:
214:
187:
173:
999:
990:
982:
952:
915:
891:
882:
745:
724:
709:
683:
652:
643:
524:
499:
460:
451:
444:
404:
395:
384:
362:
353:
346:
328:
319:
313:
279:
265:
240:
222:
203:
122:
113:
103:
94:
854:
786:
the first two citations, & are incorrect, and instead, along with , Quine's
150:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
821:
should supplement the separate topics described individually in more detail in
970:
515:
Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. "
161:
834:
367:
Your response suggests that you have no evidence for your claim that the
902:
489:
432:
191:
177:
157:
144:
932:
Snowded has removed the discussion of "what we mean when we ask 'What
698:
Let's include both of Carnap's distinctions in See..also; not just one
194:
and embroiling that article in Snowded's objections to its treatment.
694:
Let's avoid introducing historical inaccuracy for polemical purposes
965:?". It might also be pointed out that this question is the crux of
136:
252:ā The nominating editor's reason is based on his claim about the
630:
original quotations based on your own reading of limited sources
943:
I have restored a slightly modified version of this material.
25:
168:
has several essays on the topic. It even has sub-fields like
488:
This subject, I think, is not quite a seperate subject from
139:
is a huge subject in itself. Meta-ontology is discussed by
547:
that led to his development of the techniques involved in
186:
From the standpoint of WP, there is enough to say about
929:
817:
As a general article on meta-ontology, this section of
697:
693:
689:
663:
658:
636:
that might help you down stream. For the moment try,
567:
540:
765:is partly misreferenced. The second sentence says:
559:show immediately. The pertinent issue is Carnap's
492:. It would be nice to include in the main article.
790:should be cited. References and pertain to the
782:The statement is accurate, but as pointed out in
800:I've fixed these references as mentioned above.
510:Assistant N: To repeat a published observation:
427:, and it is useful to separate this material in
512:in his Ā§ 3.3 Different conceptions of ontology
8:
337:. Perhaps you could share your evidence? --
435:, which has plenty on its plate already.
600:I have again corrected these mistakes.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
778:Quine - On Carnap's views of ontology
7:
723:of the content to this article ----
176:is viewed by some as a sub-field of
688:I'd like to point out further that
24:
772:Quine - Two dogmas of empiricism
758:Section titled: Quine's approach
534:
29:
901:is, of course, that portion of
823:analytic-synthetic distinction
792:analytic-synthetic distinction
580:Analytic-synthetic distinction
561:analytic-synthetic distinction
414:article and on this Talk page.
369:Oxford Companion to Philosophy
335:Oxford Companion to Philosophy
290:) 04:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
254:Oxford Companion to Philosophy
1:
827:internal-external distinction
784:internal-external distinction
763:This section of meta-ontology
668:Internalāexternal distinction
576:Internalāexternal distinction
545:internal-external distinction
586:before Snowded got to work.
1016:
535:Snowded's biased revisions
500:16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
461:20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
445:16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
405:08:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
385:08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
363:08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
347:08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
329:07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
314:07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
266:02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
241:02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
223:16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
204:18:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
123:17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
104:17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
924:Ryle, Price and Thomasson
916:18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
892:16:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
875:10:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
810:19:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
746:21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
710:15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
684:14:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
653:05:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
610:14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
596:14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
570:Snowded also removes the
525:14:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
170:deflationary metaontology
1000:17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
983:15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
953:11:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
775:Quine - On what there is
757:
628:or loose collections of
578:but retains the link to
549:ontological commitment
42:of past discussions.
615:Pushing the edge of
574:link to the article
555:paper and Inwagen's
967:quantifier variance
137:Carnap-Quine debate
733:16:54, 25 June 20
18:Talk:Meta-ontology
998:
890:
732:
651:
634:silly accusations
459:
403:
361:
327:
292:
278:comment added by
172:. The subject of
158:long bibliography
121:
112:as nominator ----
102:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1007:
997:
995:
889:
887:
847:Allspector-Kelly
731:
729:
650:
648:
458:
456:
402:
400:
360:
358:
326:
324:
291:
272:
120:
118:
101:
99:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1005:
1004:
991:
926:
883:
788:Word and Object
760:
725:
644:
537:
452:
396:
354:
320:
273:
114:
95:
90:
88:Merger proposal
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1013:
1011:
1003:
1002:
925:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
815:
814:
813:
812:
780:
779:
776:
773:
770:
759:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
715:
714:
713:
712:
686:
536:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
503:
502:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
415:
409:Snowded: Your
372:
296:
295:
294:
293:
246:
245:
244:
243:
226:
225:
207:
206:
183:
182:
130:: The area of
125:
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1012:
1001:
996:
994:
987:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
955:
954:
950:
946:
941:
939:
935:
931:
923:
917:
913:
909:
904:
900:
899:Meta-ontology
895:
894:
893:
888:
886:
879:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
830:
828:
824:
820:
819:meta-ontology
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
793:
789:
785:
777:
774:
771:
768:
767:
766:
764:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
730:
728:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:Meta-ontology
669:
665:
660:
656:
655:
654:
649:
647:
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:Meta-ontology
581:
577:
573:
569:
564:
562:
558:
557:Meta-ontology
554:
550:
546:
542:
526:
522:
518:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
498:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
462:
457:
455:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:meta-ontology
426:
425:meta-ontology
421:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
401:
399:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
373:
370:
366:
365:
364:
359:
357:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
325:
323:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
289:
285:
281:
277:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
247:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:meta-ontology
185:
184:
179:
175:
174:meta-ontology
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
126:
124:
119:
117:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
100:
98:
87:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
992:
962:
958:
956:
942:
937:
933:
927:
884:
865:and others.
831:
816:
787:
781:
761:
726:
645:
638:
637:
599:
571:
565:
556:
552:
538:
485:
453:
419:
410:
397:
355:
321:
274:ā Preceding
249:
210:
131:
127:
115:
109:
96:
91:
78:
43:
37:
975:Brews ohare
945:Brews ohare
908:Brews ohare
867:Brews ohare
802:Brews ohare
738:Brews ohare
702:Brews ohare
676:Brews ohare
664:This action
602:Brews ohare
588:Brews ohare
541:this action
517:Brews ohare
437:Brews ohare
196:Brews ohare
166:recent book
154:Rosenkrantz
36:This is an
639:please try
553:Two dogmas
377:Bob K31416
339:Bob K31416
306:Bob K31416
258:Bob K31416
233:Bob K31416
162:PhilPapers
156:and has a
930:this edit
843:Thomasson
690:your edit
659:your edit
626:synthesis
622:ownership
148:Thomasson
79:ArchiveĀ 6
73:ArchiveĀ 5
68:ArchiveĀ 4
60:ArchiveĀ 1
903:Ontology
572:See-also
568:his edit
490:Ontology
433:Ontology
288:contribs
280:Snowded
276:unsigned
215:Ducknish
192:Ontology
178:ontology
151:Schaffer
145:Chalmers
141:Hofweber
993:Snowded
971:he said
885:Snowded
727:Snowded
646:Snowded
486:Support
454:Snowded
398:Snowded
356:Snowded
322:Snowded
211:Support
116:Snowded
110:Support
97:Snowded
39:archive
863:Putnam
859:Hirsch
855:Eklund
617:WP:AGF
250:Oppose
128:Reject
851:Yablo
835:Price
391:WP:RS
16:<
979:talk
949:talk
912:talk
871:talk
839:Bird
825:and
806:talk
742:talk
706:talk
696:and
680:talk
606:talk
592:talk
521:talk
441:talk
381:talk
352:----
343:talk
310:talk
284:talk
262:talk
237:talk
219:talk
200:talk
160:on
132:meta
928:In
670:in
566:In
539:In
411:LOL
981:)
963:is
959:is
951:)
934:is
914:)
873:)
861:,
857:,
853:,
849:,
845:,
841:,
837:,
808:)
794:.
744:)
708:)
700:.
682:)
674:.
608:)
594:)
523:)
494:75
443:)
420:is
383:)
375:--
345:)
312:)
304:--
286:ā¢
264:)
239:)
221:)
202:)
164:A
64:ā
977:(
947:(
910:(
869:(
804:(
740:(
704:(
678:(
604:(
590:(
519:(
497:*
439:(
379:(
341:(
308:(
282:(
260:(
235:(
217:(
198:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.