166:, well, we don't need to do that through the mechanism of a deletion debate. But I'm not sure what the intention of the recommendation is. Perhaps it is to deny that there are other concepts of objectivity than the philosophical one, and that all traces should be erased of articles that attempt to bypass an ontological discussion using Hegelian dialectic. --
96:
general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the
86:
articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the
Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is
95:
article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a
317:
The article is not a dictionary definition anymore, it is far too long for that and doesn't read that way. A merge could be done if the editors of the two pages want to, but that should be discussed on those two pages. If a merge happens, and if the resultant redirect isn't necessary, though I
81:
discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of
262:
I think it was me who created the article. To follow
Lambiam I feel there is significant difference to how the term objectivity is used in Science with its strict philosophical usage. In science it has a more pragmatic usage, perhaps more equivilent to
145:
I am not sure that I am mentally equipped to follow the reasoning of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, the concept of objectivity in science can be discussed without delving into Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena; in fact, science is
275:
is too full of philosophical jargon to make it an accessable article for the average scientist. Further still quantum physics with its paradoxes related to observers has useful contribution to the whole notion of objectivity.
297:
is specifically on this subject (rather than philosophy), and I'm sure there are others; I read it too long ago to edit the article today. In any case, this nomination is a merge request; there's no case to delete.
186:- Since you asked, I want this "article" to be deleted because it's a dictionary definition (dicdef) better suited for Wiktionary. No comment on philosophical validity given or implied.
267:. It is more a thing to be aimed for rather than an absolute measure. Whilst I feel there is ample scope to expand this article to give a good treatment of how the word
158:
is. The article is not quite a dictionary definition either, or else I should advise you to acquire another dictionary. If the nominator's recommendation is to
221:
per
Tychocat. I'm almost tempted to vote for speedy just to keep this debate from becoming paragraphs upon paragraphs of philosophical jargon. --
17:
340:
36:
322:
302:
285:
254:
238:
225:
207:
190:
174:
137:
123:
108:
57:
119:
339:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
272:
264:
163:
101:
70:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
115:
52:
63:
281:
154:
and has no business in distinguishing it from a metaphysical concept of a presumed world as it
203:
170:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
299:
277:
222:
235:
187:
134:
319:
310:
251:
200:
167:
78:
313:
has done a significant expansion (it was already and still is marked as a stub).
97:
88:
83:
196:
105:
74:
271:
is used in science, alas I do not have time to devote to it. Further
234:
It won't, not from me, in any case. I can see how this could go.
92:
195:
Apparently I was not clear, but I was referring to the nominator
333:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
133:
dicdef. I'm not sure if there's a joke here, or who's it on.
315:
The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article.
199:'s recommendation. If you understand it, please explain. --
114:
This nomination was objectively incomplete. Listing now. -
318:
suspect it would be, then that can be brought up at RFD.
250:- Dicdef, not a specifically scientific use of the word.
91:
discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
343:). No further edits should be made to this page.
73:, which itself states that it is "concerned by
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
291:Keep, mark as stub, and expand
1:
82:objectivity to other general
44:The result of the debate was
360:
109:19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
323:21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
303:15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
286:14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
255:09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
239:03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
226:00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
208:08:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
191:03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
175:22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
138:15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
124:13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
58:00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
336:Please do not modify it.
273:Objectivity (philosophy)
265:objectivity (journalism)
164:Objectivity (philosophy)
102:objectivity (philosophy)
71:objectivity (philosophy)
32:Please do not modify it.
69:This article repeats
64:Objectivity (science)
295:Edge of Objectivity
152:as we experience it
205:
172:
351:
338:
204:
171:
150:about the world
143:Beg your pardon?
100:article and the
34:
359:
358:
354:
353:
352:
350:
349:
348:
347:
341:deletion review
334:
300:Septentrionalis
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
357:
355:
346:
345:
328:
326:
325:
305:
293:. Gillespie's
288:
257:
244:
243:
242:
241:
229:
228:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
178:
177:
140:
127:
126:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
356:
344:
342:
337:
331:
330:
329:
324:
321:
316:
312:
309:
306:
304:
301:
296:
292:
289:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
261:
258:
256:
253:
249:
246:
245:
240:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
220:
217:
216:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
141:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
80:
76:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
335:
332:
327:
314:
307:
294:
290:
268:
259:
247:
218:
183:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
130:
79:metaphysical
68:
53:
50:Deathphoenix
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
98:objectivity
89:ontological
84:objectivity
278:Salix alba
162:this into
116:Liberatore
269:objective
260:Week keep
223:Coredesat
104:article.
75:epistemic
236:Tychocat
188:Tychocat
135:Tychocat
320:GRBerry
311:Lambiam
252:Tevildo
201:Lambiam
184:Comment
168:Lambiam
248:Delete
219:Delete
131:Delete
197:Lapaz
160:merge
156:truly
106:Lapaz
93:being
16:<
308:Keep
282:talk
148:only
77:and
87:an
284:)
276:--
122:)
48:.
280:(
120:T
118:(
54:ʕ
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.