350:
paranormal without getting specific (like what's there now). I'd love to see the paranormal article expanded to have brief summaries of other general ideas, like of how science sees the paranormal, some statistics on paranormal commerce (book industry, conventions, etc), and so on. These are all general things about paranormal pop culture that wouldn't look right as a list of links. There should at least be basic summaries before a link to a main article. If I'm understanding
759:
I know I'm a party in this ArbCom, but I need to take a few days/weeks off for real-world projects. Sorry for any inconvenience. Please consider anything after this timestamp to neither be endorsed nor rejected by me personally. If anyone needs me to respond to anything, please drop a note on my talk
295:
That's a pretty fair assessment. I don't know how it can demarcate what is and isn't paranormal any better. It's mostly just an adjective. How would you demarcate the adjective "extraordinary" to any narrow extent? Most dictionaries agree that paranormal means something unexplainable by science, like
519:
And in these universities, talking to the average philosopher of science is like talking to a scientist (who can't add). It really is that straightforward. Maybe some day philosophers will try to move things with their minds and consult the stars on what to have for dinner, but the ones who do today
349:
I don't really care for those types of pages because they seem lazy. Might as well be a category page, and if a category why not just a redirect to the category? I think that would be a disservice to the article, though, because I think there are some notable ideas that are generally applied to the
483:
analytic. Some programs are more accommodating to
Continental stuff, but most have only one or two token faculty positions open to it (for "diversity"). My own program has a single, underpaid adjunct teaching non-analytic material (I'm not sure if he does any research). He doesn't even get his own
513:
the
University of California campuses, most of the top liberal arts colleges, most of the flagship campuses of the second-tier state research universities boast philosophy departments that overwhelmingly self-identify as "analytic": it is hard to imagine a "movement" that is more academically and
825:
and points out that these results have not been accepted by mainstream science. This is mentioned clearly in several places. The bulk of the article approaches parapsychology from a historical perspective. While the revision was mostly made to cleanup the horrible state it was in, it was written
474:
Yes, most scientists regard
Freudian theory to be pseudoscientific. Psychoanalysis is now mainly of historical interest (but it does have a few devotees still breathing). And as someone who is destined to be permanently embedded in academia, I can tell you that in the Anglophonic philosophical
49:
I was wondering if the paranormal enthusiasts participating in this RfArb might consider ceasing to identify the targets of their critiques as a single group called the "skeptics." There really is no coherent body here standing in defiant opposition to paranormal truths. I hadn't even heard of
141:
I'd like to see some input from an Arbcom member on whether this is just about user conduct or if it is also about other issues. If it's just about user conduct, much of what I've added can be removed, though some of it involves what is and isn't POV, and that might be related to user conduct
550:
is the mainstream philosophy of science. However, as an encyclopedia we need to have a global view. The
Continental rationalistic philosophy may prevail in European continent (although I don't know). The realm of philosophy is extremely diverse,
113:
Agree. Long, passionate diatribes and speculative semantic excursions are unhelpful to the Arbcom members. If there are diffs that show examples of nonconsensus POV-pushing and refusal to acknowledge WP:V, they should be posted. -
103:
Just my opinion, but it seems heavy on discussion and light on evidence. Even on the evidence page, in some sections there are long paragraphs making accusations with few diffs showing examples of the alleged behaviour.
576:—are held in English (though some papers are read in languages other than English). A non-Anglophone philosopher "goes international" when he or she gets published in a prominent English-language journal. It's simply the
123:
I am of the opinion that refactoring may be in order and I'm particularly unimpressed with certain uninvolved editors involving themselves here. However, I'd like to see an arbitrator or a clerk do this.
191:
Issues overall seem to be an overlapping mix of conduct, content, and interpretation of WP policy. Considering that article stability is a goal, we might consider requesting that some articles be put on
826:
taking into account this arbitration and its progress thus far. I'm hoping the arbitration will consider the updated version in its findings, especially in the principles dealing with parapsychology. --
812:
article has been drastically revised, partly to make it more stable and reduce edit conflicts, and partly to address some of the concerns and points made in this arbitration. It accurately reflects the
30:
Gah, this page is filling up fast and I don't have the time to read it all. For the record, if I miss something or don't respond to something right away, that doesn't imply that I support or oppose it.
167:
228:
Generally speaking, all head articles for entire fields are rather bad on
Knowledge (XXG) (compared to their importance and to good encyclopedias), in my not so humble opinione this applies to
461:'s analytic philosophy. Each philosophy of science has different ideas. Off topic, I haven't learned Fourier series yet, but I guess all those individuals I mentioned above can calculate
21:
239:
My favorite complaint: We have a lot of dedicated navigation mechanisms (lists, categories, navboxes, portals) -- why haunt the main article with tons of textless wikilinks.
612:? In my knowledge Hegel was pretty influential in philosophy as well. Anyways, the nihilism one was off-topic, and no, those "anarchist" kid don't even know what nihil is.
324:
directing the reader to more specific articles or a pseudo-disambig (briefly discussing the word usage and linking to more specific articles), like the (not that great)
861:
744:
can a clerk please refactor out the rampant voting? it's a mockery of the arbitration process, in my opinion as an uninvolved (as far as i know) user. --
17:
394:, but talking to the average philosopher of science today is like talking to the average scientist (except the philosopher probably can't calculate
688:
Hey Simoes thanks for the information. For years I thought Hegel was a crucial figure in philosophical history, I thought that when I see it took
621:
You can go through 12 years of formal philosophical training (my own continued fate) without reading a word of Hegel. The same can't be said for
781:
855:
760:
page or send me an email as I probably won't be reading through everything posted here. Thanks and sorry I couldn't stick it out.
961:
938:
910:
896:
834:
795:
770:
748:
719:
696:
683:
616:
603:
563:
538:
469:
424:
365:
332:
307:
286:
222:
200:
193:
181:
153:
128:
118:
108:
97:
83:
39:
713:
677:
597:
573:
532:
418:
77:
879:
457:(which I think that's what you think it's "mainstream philosophy of science", but there is no way to see if it is) or
58:" users self-identifies as a skeptic when discussing articles. It thus smacks of a pejorative usage in this context.
867:
585:
Oh, and "nihilism" is something teenagers write in red on their black backpacks (right below the anarchy sign).
210:
On a sidenote (as in not part of the arbitration to my knowledge), I was wondering what editors thought of the
54:
until someone mentioned it during
Martinphi's RfC. More importantly, I do not believe anyone disagreeing with "
849:
650:
387:
296:
an anomaly, but in practice it's also meant to describe something spooky. That's still a pretty broad area.
844:
701:
Kierkegaard's works are only slightly more read than Hegel's in contemporary philosophy departments. ;)
383:
125:
321:
821:(without rebuttal). It does present notable parapsychological research, but is completely framed as a
814:
790:
51:
893:
745:
662:
634:
630:
547:
488:
391:
386:
is lockstep with the general mentality of mainstream science. There are some notable critics of
582:
of philosophy, and the present movement in philosophy of science is as I've described it above.
402:
things like astrology, the paranormal, freudian psychoanalysis, etc. are pseudoscientific, not
689:
273:
105:
954:
658:
907:
785:
197:
115:
479:
philosophical world outside of a few trendy
Parisian cafés—professional philosophers are
822:
809:
801:
784:? It is claimed to be copyrighted and fair use, but I'm unclear on how this applies. --
622:
544:
442:
434:
395:
932:
828:
764:
646:
638:
578:
462:
450:
438:
430:
359:
301:
216:
175:
147:
33:
437:
is pretty solid. For philosophy of science, depend on whether you are talking about
817:
against parapsychology, and presents criticism from such mainstream periodicals as
495:
492:
446:
329:
283:
269:
94:
703:
667:
642:
626:
609:
587:
522:
458:
408:
67:
906:(nonconsensus removal of material). Looks like another straw man sockpuppet. -
693:
654:
613:
560:
466:
454:
317:
277:
262:
244:
229:
211:
325:
265:, both suffer from a demarcation problem, which is unsolved in the article.
61:
Needless to say, Davkal's choice to call users with whom he disagrees the "
552:
351:
313:
240:
233:
924:
170:
is huge and isn't just about user conduct. Any insight Arbcom guys?
920:
312:
If correlating the word "paranormal" to a specific subjects looks
572:
philosophical world. All international conferences—including the
608:
So positivism and analytic philosophy is the dominant? Where is
520:
are sent next door to the psychology department for evaluation.
214:
article? POV, NPOV, good coverage, needs more coverage, etc? --
168:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence
93:
More than 170k of text before any ArbCom has even commented. --
903:
885:
873:
62:
55:
89:
Is this the way the
Workshop page is intended to work?
782:
Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg
776:
Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg
568:
514:
professionally entrenched than analytic philosophy.
780:Can someone please clarify the copyright status of
398:;) ). The philosophical controversy that exists is
65:" is even worse. Please don't do that, either.
543:Well, I agree that in English-speaking world,
354:correctly, like vaporous, I don't think it is.
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration
8:
509:the leading state research universities,
261:Further, The Paranormal, and the article
555:even outrightly rejects both scientific
433:is a pseudoscience? As far as I know
7:
919:Is that a typo or is it really P -
243:has two blue monster tables of and
949:Yes, This person can't even spell
28:
378:Mainstream philosophy of science
390:and certain details of various
52:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism
1:
505:the Ivy League universities,
574:World Congress of Philosophy
258:Sorry for the nitpicking ;-)
980:
720:22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
697:22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
684:20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
617:20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
604:20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
564:20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
559:non-scientific concepts.
539:20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
470:19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
425:19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
366:19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
333:18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
308:17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
287:07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
223:04:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
201:01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
182:01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
154:01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
129:00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
119:00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
109:23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
98:23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
84:22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
40:16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
475:world—which is currently
962:02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
939:00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
911:21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
897:20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
835:07:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
796:09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
771:05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
749:04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
251:lists, a TV guide and a
553:this kind of philosophy
388:metaphysical naturalism
516:
445:(some of it came from
382:Presently, mainstream
754:Off to see the wizard
690:a great guy I respect
500:
392:demarcation solutions
384:philosophy of science
815:scientific consensus
63:pseudosceptical side
548:analytic philosophy
232:as well as e.g. to
840:Comments, anyone?
794:
692:to refute Hegel.
274:religious studies
194:article probation
971:
958:
935:
892:Just wonderin'.
889:
862:deleted contribs
831:
788:
767:
717:
706:
681:
670:
601:
590:
536:
525:
422:
411:
362:
320:should become a
304:
268:No sources from
219:
178:
150:
126:ScienceApologist
81:
70:
36:
979:
978:
974:
973:
972:
970:
969:
968:
956:
933:
923:- o instead of
847:
842:
829:
806:
778:
765:
756:
742:
716:
710:
704:
680:
674:
668:
600:
594:
588:
535:
529:
523:
421:
415:
409:
380:
360:
302:
280:have been used.
217:
208:
176:
148:
91:
80:
74:
68:
47:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
977:
975:
967:
966:
965:
964:
944:
943:
942:
941:
928:
914:
913:
904:trollish edits
894:SheffieldSteel
841:
838:
823:fringe science
810:parapsychology
805:
802:Parapsychology
799:
777:
774:
755:
752:
741:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
712:
676:
596:
583:
545:Anglo-American
531:
517:
498:
485:
481:overwhelmingly
443:Thomas Aquinas
435:psychoanalysis
417:
396:Fourier series
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
355:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
297:
290:
289:
281:
266:
259:
256:
237:
207:
204:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
171:
166:Of course the
159:
158:
157:
156:
143:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
90:
87:
76:
56:pro-paranormal
46:
43:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
976:
963:
960:
959:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
940:
937:
936:
929:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
915:
912:
909:
905:
902:Consistently
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
846:
845:Psuedoskeptic
839:
837:
836:
833:
832:
824:
820:
816:
811:
803:
800:
798:
797:
792:
787:
783:
775:
773:
772:
769:
768:
761:
753:
751:
750:
747:
739:
721:
715:
708:
707:
700:
699:
698:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
679:
672:
671:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
599:
592:
591:
584:
581:
580:
579:lingua franca
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
549:
546:
542:
541:
540:
534:
527:
526:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
499:
496:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
473:
472:
471:
468:
464:
463:Taylor series
460:
456:
452:
451:Auguste Comte
449:methods), or
448:
444:
440:
439:scholasticism
436:
432:
431:Sigmund Freud
429:
428:
427:
426:
420:
413:
412:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
377:
367:
364:
363:
356:
353:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
334:
331:
327:
326:de:Paranormal
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
306:
305:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
260:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
231:
227:
226:
225:
224:
221:
220:
213:
205:
203:
202:
199:
195:
183:
180:
179:
172:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
155:
152:
151:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
130:
127:
122:
121:
120:
117:
112:
111:
110:
107:
102:
101:
100:
99:
96:
88:
86:
85:
79:
72:
71:
64:
59:
57:
53:
44:
42:
41:
38:
37:
23:
19:
955:
950:
931:
891:
882:
876:
870:
864:
858:
852:
843:
827:
818:
807:
779:
763:
758:
757:
743:
702:
666:
663:Wittgenstein
586:
577:
569:
556:
521:
510:
506:
502:
501:
493:Brian Leiter
480:
476:
447:Aristotelian
407:
403:
399:
381:
358:
300:
270:anthropology
252:
248:
215:
209:
190:
174:
146:
106:Minderbinder
92:
66:
60:
48:
32:
29:
957:Wikidudeman
610:Hegelianism
459:Karl Popper
953:correctly.
908:LuckyLouie
880:block user
874:filter log
786:Strangerer
455:positivism
406:they are.
318:Paranormal
278:psychiatry
263:Paranormal
245:Paranormal
230:Paranormal
212:paranormal
198:LuckyLouie
116:LuckyLouie
22:Paranormal
886:block log
746:Random832
934:Nealparr
856:contribs
830:Nealparr
766:Nealparr
714:contribs
678:contribs
598:contribs
533:contribs
419:contribs
361:Nealparr
352:quixotic
322:disambig
314:quixotic
303:Nealparr
253:see also
249:subjects
218:Nealparr
206:Sidenote
177:Nealparr
149:Nealparr
78:contribs
45:Skeptics
35:Nealparr
20: |
804:rewrite
659:Russell
623:Dennett
484:office.
404:whether
330:Pjacobi
284:Pjacobi
241:Physics
234:Physics
142:issues.
95:Pjacobi
951:pseudo
925:pseudo
819:Nature
740:voting
705:Simões
669:Simões
647:Putnam
643:Popper
639:Nozick
627:Kripke
589:Simões
524:Simões
465:. :-)
410:Simões
276:, and
247:has a
69:Simões
927:? LOL
921:suede
694:Wooyi
661:, or
655:Rawls
651:Quine
635:Moore
631:Lewis
614:Wooyi
561:Wooyi
487:From
467:Wooyi
16:<
868:logs
850:talk
808:The
791:Talk
328:. --
196:. -
570:the
557:and
511:all
507:all
503:All
491:'s
477:the
453:'s
441:of
400:why
930:--
762:--
718:)
682:)
665:.
657:,
653:,
649:,
645:,
641:,
637:,
633:,
629:,
625:,
602:)
537:)
489:UT
423:)
357:--
316:,
299:--
272:,
173:--
145:--
124:--
104:--
82:)
31:--
888:)
883:·
877:·
871:·
865:·
859:·
853:·
848:(
793:)
789:(
711:/
709:(
675:/
673:(
595:/
593:(
530:/
528:(
497::
416:/
414:(
255:.
236:.
75:/
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.