Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 14

3394:

immediately, daily or hourly, as someone invests their time effort and experience to improve it. Let them a respectful amount of space to get somewhere, as much as you wish your experienced or considered input to be ultimately respected. In good time take the article forward yourself if possible, eg. checking if there are cites and adding them yourself before demanding them. This is often easier to do than requesting it done and explaining at length why it is crucial. The comment about getting "kicked off Knowledge" for complaint is a bit harsh. I have been maligned by an editor here, eg called "a pathetic persistent liar" etc, and a previous administrative incident review about the conflict ended without a single admin comment - it was simply archived. I have also been slightly rude to Philogo about a mistake where he wiped another editor's discussed contribution to an article in a single edit marked minor. I considered apologising for tone, but not with no admission of the error, and in this area of WP at least there seems to be a vacuum of actual moderation. Certainly civil standards are much much preferable, but frustration at unchecked problem behaviour can quite fairly produce outbursts. It is something to watch out for here, for your own tranquility rather than supposed WP process.

2183:

subjects are added, I and maybe some others are going to try to determine which are the journals which are most highly regarded and most directly applicable to the subjects, and write them a letter or e-mail which we hope gets published indicating that we as editors of wikipedia would be very appreciative if material relevant to the subjects would be published, so we could include it in our articles. The A-Class review proposal could be seen as another attempt to copy the Military history project, which does have a specific project-based A-Class review, independent of GA and FA, to determine which articles receive that article assessment rating. I haven't been at all active in the Military history A-Class reviewing process myself, but at least some years ago I was one of the more active editors in the

2131:, which is the regular newsletter of the Military History project. It is probably the best organized of all the WikiProjects, and wikipedia has been called the best military history site on the web because of their work, so I'm thinking they're a reasonable model to follow. The Philosophy project could potentially do a similar newsletter on its own, as could religion and mythology for that matter, but personally, given the significant overlap between the three, I thought that maybe having some sort of joint newsletter might be both less work and, potentially, help bring more attention to some of the topics which don't get as much attention. 252: 3362:

enables you to be in several different places, and to have different properties in different places: you're cold down there on the tiled floor, and also warm up there by the heater, because your feet are cold and your head is warm... eople take up time as well as taking up space: you existed yesterday, and, unless reading this article is a real strain, you will exist tomorrow too. Just as you can have different properties at different places (hot up here, cold down there), you can have different properties at different times (yesterday you hadn't heard of temporal parts, by tomorrow you'll know plenty about them).

3978:

2007/2008 was a bad time for me personally ...) Anyway, three years and 200,000+ edits later, things have settled down, those troublemakers all spat the dummy and left, and I facilitated a useful collaboration between Wikispecies, ZooKeys (Pensoft Publishing) and Species-ID (a consortium of professional entomologists/bioinformaticians based mainly in Europe), so now we routinely link to each other's sites, and all benefit from the increased traffic. So, it would be nice to hear a balanced assessment of the situation from you, instead of all this blatant bias ... perhaps then we can work together?

194:. In the context of a disagreement about the sovereignty of a small group of islands in the East China Sea, the examples in the table are contradictions of a 2010 statement by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu, who told reporters: :"The Diaoyu Islands have always been Chinese territory since ancient times, and this is the fact that nobody can ever change. China owns indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. The Chinese government’s will and determination to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity is firm and unshakable." 4374:. This is a point where compromise is not possible< Again, I disagree! The rule is self-defeating. In philosophy, when someone (P) publishes an interpretation of Q, P's interpretation typically stands just as much in need of interpretation as Q! You can't break out of the circle and say here is P's interpretation, unless you either (1) just quote P directly, or (2) interpret P. If we go for (1), then WP becomes just "Wikiquotes", and the quote will typically be so difficult to interpret that it is useless (see clarification below). Hence, (2) is the 2093:

some more activity, and, maybe, help bring more attention to highlighted articles and topics if they are mentioned there. Also, as indicated there, I have made a specific section for content which we think might stand for new material in either journals or articles, like underdeveloped topics or topics which have recently been controversial. If there were to be a newsletter, maybe, just maybe, we might be able to perhaps get an A-Class review going, and maybe a few other things. Anyway, despite the name of the page (I had to choose

600:"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands.... The Ryukyu Islands stretch over 1,000 kilometers, inside of which is our East China Sea (the East Sea in Chinese) and outside of which is the high seas of the Pacific Ocean." 281:"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands.... The Ryukyu Islands stretch over 1,000 kilometers, inside of which is our East China Sea (the East Sea in Chinese) and outside of which is the high seas of the Pacific Ocean." 1070:{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }} 3379:'s citation requests. They wouldn't add such requests if it were obvious to them. While it is easier to complain from the sidelines, the burden is on the person who wants to add material to comply with content policies. Most importantly, when you find these requests unreasonable, you explain why it is unreasonable and you may ask here for second opinions, but you do not call that editor "part of the problem" unless your goal is to be kicked off Knowledge as quickly as possible. 1867:, when I was about 12 or 13 years old. I don't remember anything in it, except that it made me want more, and that he starts off with an extensive quote of Hegel(?), after which he points out that if the reader is mystified, but after reading it over and over, can speak the laguage, even though he or she doesn't really understand what they are saying, it's because it is utter nonsense. I therefore propose merging all Hegel related articles to be subsections of the 3230:. Could an as-yet uninvolved editor or two take a look at the talk page discussion and article history and weigh in. The primary problem (as I saw) was a lede that was overly detailed and essaylike and one editor (Stho002) refusing to work collaboratively. In the interest of disclosure, and to stave off any appearance of forum shopping, I'd already filed a WQA but I think it's to the level of content discussion now and within the scope of this project. Thanks 1745: 31: 177:

Senkaku Islands. In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands. Moreover, for example "The Republic of China New Atlas" published in China in 1933 and "World Atlas" published in China in 1960 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan.

801:

infinite regressionist's potential question, before she could ask , "but mommy, if the Clown created God, then who created the Clown?" This also explains the numerologically significant lucky number "7" for the number of days in a week, and why both the menstrual and lunar cycles are nice multiples of it (28). As to the rest of your observation, note that "the only really interesting philosophical topics can be reduced to jokes", the

2229:. I believe that arguments in the sense that the article is discussing them can be both logical (that is, employed in everyday discourse, scientific discourse, philosophical discourse, etc. but with specific logical features), and "philosophical" (in the sense of structured, rational argument on important general themes) and that it does us no good here to take sides and say certain arguments are either "logical" or "philosophical." 758:

know all the numbers that belong to that class, if we know all the numbers that belong to that class we should be able to list all the numbers that belong to that class, but the numbers that belong to that class are infinite, therefore, we can not list them, therefore, we can not be certain about anything that is said about the class of real numbers. I think Zeno's “Achilles and the tortoise” is the same sort of thing.--

2563: 1621: 1630: 3367:

consistent from article to article! When it comes to style, though, I'd rather agree with what you say, "we should be more guided by whether the article explains things well, and less by robotic adherence to strict policy". And unless you want to have this highly specialized article featured on the Knowledge front page, there is no need to enforce every single style guideline fanatically.

1536:, although I do intend to create a wikipedia space page for the meeting, or maybe move the existing page. Anyway, it is my hope that there would be one month of general discussion of the topic, and then later a second month for specific ideas and or actions which might or might not be taken up for, perhaps, the next year, with maybe another meeting following a year later. 2077:, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. 1639: 4664:

out. However, nobody has actually tried to do that. All that they have done is to remove the whole passage altogether! It is easy ... 'We can understand "was" in terms of "is" and "past"' becomes '"Was" can be understood in terms of "is" and "past"'. But if that is all you are worried about, then I suggest that you are fiddling while Rome burns ...

5232: 634: 4110:, from your accusation of “blatant bias” on my part. Whereas I know the latter to be false, it makes it difficult to take you at your word regarding the former, (much less assume the “we can work together” overture was in good faith). The sooner you're ready to put such incidents behind you, the better it will be for everyone.— 4272:, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' , the third debate being A-theory vs. B-theory of time (see below). Therefore, it appears to be very difficult to disentangle the issues or work out any firm terminological distinctions. It is unclear if all the literature exactly follows the terminology of 4518:“I prefer the four-dimensionalist account”, “offers an explanation of the terminology which (fairly) clearly equates four-dimensionalism with perdurantism”, “related, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' ,” The whole section is difficult to read, and is written like an essay in first person. 4352:

reveal their "true identity" on their user page, but can be "no way anonymous" if "true identity" is revealed (something I must get around to doing on my user page here). There is actually no significant difference with "those other encyclopedias" in that regard. If anything, WP is less anonymous, as you can't tell

4154:: At your suggestion I took a look at this article, shortened the lede, made a few suggestions and proposed a new lede. It appears to me, however, that it is difficult for editors to assist with this article without being subject to personal abuse and for their edits to be summarily reverted. The lede states 5035:

Wrong again! I was not talking about that in particular. I can't be bothered tracking the history (better things to do), but the current lede (or at least it was current last time I looked) was a concise and acceptable lede according to both Vesal and myself. It keeps changing, and not for the better

4950:

of references, but not explaining their relevance ... again this just results in main points being lost in unnecessary detail. As for the 'expert needed' flag, that could apply to just about any article on WP, and it doesn't define what is mean't by "expert". I'm not saying that it means much at all,

2501:

I'm pretty much out after my previous experience (with m.e.) , except for warring when necessary (no wasted discussion and certainly bloodless), and contributing links and diffs to a proper review of this situation in the wikiproject - if it might ever muster one. If you are an intelligent wikipedian

2493:

Long story short: Philogo's actions and arguments were not reasonable here, eg. after a pause, he quietly wiped all Walkinxyz's cited and discussed work -in an edit marked minor. I personally think an editor caught doing that should apologise and shuffle off discretely rather than come back with more

2318:

Using terminology from Heidegger, and other sources that share the same terminology (including dozens of other primary and secondary sources), Kompridis has called a family of these arguments "world-disclosing" (in the ontological sense of "world" – i.e. bearing on conditions of intelligibility). The

2092:

One of the proposals made on the above linked to page is a proposal for, maybe, a joint mythology-philosophy-religion newsletter, maybe similar to the monthly newsletter of the MILHIST project. I do think that, maybe, sending such "news updates" to members of the various projects might help stimulate

940:

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

800:

Partial response - You bring up an interesting matter, "Are all paradoxes equivalent to 'The Clown's First Tautology'?" (The Clown created God, and gave birth to herself when she shat her own self out on the seventh day following six days of menstrual constipation, in order to shut up the little girl

151:

It is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitute Japan's inherent territory .... Until then, they had never expressed any objections, including to the fact that

4351:

However, Knowledge is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous< I disagree! Articles here are not anonymous! The edit history is preserved and accessible. It shows who did what. Edits can be "somewhat anonymous", if the edit is by an IP or an account that doesn't

4121:

Well I hope that rant had some meaning for you, because I am left scratching my head what it was all about? When all is said and done, I just want to improve a few metaphysics articles on WP ... but when it gets instantly reverted back to the previous crappy version, and other editors start trawling

3977:

Well, I do see history repeating itself ... back in 2008, when I started contributing to Wikispecies, there was initially a few people who suddenly started to show their true colours, and that had to be battled through (admittedly, my first attempts to battle them were, in retrospect, laughable, but

2255:

However, Philogo demands that any discussion of argument on that page be confined to formal logic, and therefore any discussion about what the point of an argument is, or its source of validity (e.g. logical truth vs. justification vs. some pragmatic test), or its approach or philosophical method of

1539:

Anyway, having gotten all the exposition out of the way, I was wondering whether the members of this project believe it might make sense to expand the scope of the meeting to include philosophy as well. Ethics and religious philosophy are both I think "overlap" territories of the two projects, and I

757:

I don't see the connection between the creep paradox and the Frege-Church thing (but I don't know Frege-Church, only the WP article). Isn't the creep paradox just one of those infinite list problems. For example, if we are going to say anything with certainty about the class of real numbers, we must

4744:

is simply the most badly worded and misunderstood bit of policy in the whole of world wide wiki land! What it should state is that it is unacceptable to link statements together as a rhetorical device, so as to imply (connote) conclusions that go beyond the premises. What it actually forbids is any

4627:

can understand "was" in terms of "is" and "past", but only if the past exists. The past is understood as a time before the present. If you can understand the idea of someone existing in the present, and you understand the idea of a linearly ordered sequence (i.e., time), then you can understand the

4400:

that one knows about the topic, but you can't cite everything that you know about the topic! Hence, an interpretation in philosophy is uncitable (except perhaps in a PhD thesis with a huge bibliography). The reader of a WP article on philosophy just needs to be aware that what they are reading has,

4166:

Persistence through time is like extension through space. A road has spatial parts in the subregions of the region of space it occupies; likewise, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. This view — known variously as four

3245:

Just to correct an error in the above, I do not refuse to work collaboratively, but collaboration means more than me adding something positive while the others just sit around reverting it on technicalities. Actually, I think that now we are working more collaboratively on it, but that doesn't mean

2187:

A-Class assessment process, and think that it might be beneficial if we had maybe some sort of similar process here. My hope would be that these "reviews" might be made by some people who have some familiarity with the subject, which isn't necessarily the case for GA and FA candidates, and that the

2145:

P.S. One of the things being proposed in the meeting is that we might in time write some letters to some relevant journals asking for additional information on topics which we can't find sufficient information or sufficient current information on. If there are any such topics relating to philosophy

176:

There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the

124:

It appears not to be generally understood that for a given argument, there is often a large number of counterarguments, some of which are not compatible with each other. If this table is incompatible with our project goals, this thread will help clarify the point. The table presents the views of a

4510:

states: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views… these opinions should not be stated in Knowledge's voice… watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to

4448:

Then a core WP policy makes it impossible to create metaphysics articles that can be understood, as opposed to being mere compilations parrot-fashion quotations. Verifiability surely does not apply to explanations or illustrative examples??? So, what you seem to be saying is that bad policy (or at

3499:

Once again, Philogo has reverted, without seeking consensus, the lede which Vesal and myself were both happy with, and now tries to prevent reversion of his version by insisting that we get consensus first (as if!!!) Machine elf seems to be backing him up by putting all sorts of heavy handed block

3153:

Yes, nothing about its importance. I think it is true to say that modern science (and thereby industrial civilization) is based on ideas first put forward in this book. Quite possibly the most important book of all time. If anybody wants a copy, there was one for sale on ebay recently; only 60,000

2746:

for technical information on doing a merger discussion. E.g. you should include rationale with the proposal on the talk page. Also, you should sign the proposal. Etc. — With respect to the similar article names, you can take a look at the help pages on article names. As far as I remember there has

2539:

Not settled. Silenced and stubbornly blocked. "Compromise" on argument was forced, not reached through genuine discussion. MachineElf and Philogo are most astonishingly not receptive to the reasons of other editors, or to significant major themes in modern philosophy. Indeed, it is surprising that

2448:

It was indeed Linsabreeny not Walkinxyz who wrote "This seems crazy to me and i will edit war and dispute it.": my apologies. I would be grateful if you would not ascribe views to me: the views are expressed here and the article's talk page. Original discussion on this talk page restored below.

2182:

is specifically to indicate specific subjects which we cannot find much information or much current information on. The meeting, intended to be for two months, was initially to spend one month gathering data and another acting on it. Regarding this particular subject, come next month, when all the

2052:

You are either looking for the term "autological" which describes a word that describes itself (i.e. the word "short" is a short word and therefore autological, whereas the word "long" does not describe itself, and is therefore not autological, but rather heterological.) or you are looking for the

1781:

of UCLA. Yost showed the class the Land Effect in his undergraduate Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind class. He then went on to tell the class about how, in the 1960’s, he was legally given increasingly large megadoses of LSD in a government funded experiment at UCLA, but he noticed no

4663:

I assume that by "counter-factual" you just mean "false"? I just don't want to get mixed up with the notion of counterfactuals in philosophy. Anyway, I accept that when writing that particular example, I said 'we' a few times (book the firing squad without delay!), and the 'we's could be reworded

3366:

I really don't see why such writing should be considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But here is the deal: either we challenge these style guidelines globally, which you can do on the talk page of each policy or style guide, or we stick with them. An encyclopedia needs to be at least somewhat

3361:

You're performing an amazing trick right now: you're in two places at once. How do you manage to be down there, near the floor, and yet also be a metre or two up in the air? Well, it's not so very amazing: your feet are down there on the floor, and your head is up in the air. Having spatial parts

955:

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

3370:

However, Knowledge is different from those other encyclopedias since articles here are anonymous. If a SEP article contains a non-trivial proposition without attributing it to anyone, you know it is the interpretation of the author of the article. You cannot do that on Knowledge! Here everything

1764:

at WP, on this very talk page. If you are the typical philosopher who wears a red contact lens on your left eye and a green lens on your right eye to work, and if you also have vertically oriented eyes (like a spider), or equivalently, if you rotate your head 90 degrees, you will see the section

356:

Description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku

779:

As everything in the universe is connected to everything else, all articles in the wikipedia will become infinitely long (whatever, the subject of a Knowledge article and whatever is said in a Knowledge article, there will always be something else of relevance that can be added). This is called

3938:

is no biggie because we are “bad editors” who are “deliberately” trying to make your edit history look “bad”, (consensus offering no justification whatsoever for continuing to revert you). Naturally, you believe it's unfair that your efforts to thwart such malice directed at your person's edit

2523:

How sad, still randomly telling pathetic lies about me for no reason? Seems the matter's been settled over at argument for some time now... If you weren't so uninterested in contributing to the encyclopedia, I've no doubt you'd have gotten yourself blocked by now with your admittedly mercenary

1957:

but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to

4635:

understand (model) time in this eternalist manner, does that mean that reality is really like that? Does the past really exist, and what does that mean, anyway? Or, is the model just a formal device which is useful to adopt for some theoretical purposes? Applying the model to the future does,

1555:

This is interesting to me as I will be auditing a PhD seminar on secularism and modernity in the next few months. I think it is a very good idea to include those interested in philosophy in a discussion on religion, since they have been entwined for much of their respective histories. And the

4781:

Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same

4206:

As for Philogo's point (above), I can only reiterate that the topic is itself very unclear terminologically and even conceptually, so the WP article cannot be any more clear than the topic. It may help (or make things worse) that I have now added the following paragraph and references to the

3393:

The edit history looks too frantic, too frequent critical 'feedback' or 'instruction' and 'protection' of the article, and then resulting energy wasting discussion. Unless there is something urgently bad added to a "start class" or similar article, experienced wp editors should not intervein

2072:

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at

4525:

criteria, for example: “there are three, closely related, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' , the third debate being A-theory vs. B-theory of time (see below). Therefore, it appears to be very difficult to disentangle the issues or work out any firm terminological

1556:

centrality of ethics in many religions is indisputable, as you correctly point out. The philosophy of religion is something I have less experience and interest in, but I'm sure there are others who do share that interest. If they have something to offer, great. Thanks for proposing it here.

3011:

89.110.0.4, 89.110.0.62, 89.110.14.210, 89.110.14.26, 89.110.16.14, 89.110.16.241, 89.110.19.187, 89.110.20.164, 89.110.4.94, 89.110.6.2 , 89.110.9.221, 9.110.4.94, 91.122.1.73, 91.122.4.34, 91.122.6.123, 91.122.6.46, 91.122.6.62, 91.122.80.83, 91.122.87.244, 91.122.93.63, 92.100.179.13,

4221:(1985: 299-300) stated that 'the m.o. view, as canvassed below, is not my first choice amongst approaches to fission cases. I prefer the four-dimensionalist account (itself an m.o. analysis) presented with exemplary clarity by David Lewis in 'Survival and Identity' '. Unfortunately, 1561:

Political philosophy is another area that is interesting right now with regards to religion, since the political claims of religion have made a resurgence in the last decade, and it is a question how political philosophy should respond to this (apparently) obtrusive and unexpected

4652:“The past is understood as a time before the present.” I bet the readers know that, don't you think? Anyway, I had to reread the quote JonPF mentions several times myself... it's not clearly presented. The single quotes are easy to miss and it just waffles on for awhile... FYI— 4628:

idea of someone existing in the past! It is just a simple set theoretic model of time. "Was" just means "is" at some point before the present (i.e., at some point before, or "less than", one's current coordinate on the time line). What is unclear, however, is that just because

4526:

distinctions. It is unclear if all the literature exactly follows the terminology of Muis” this is your opinion. It might be true, it might be something that would be worthwhile to talk about in a philosophy class. But it has no place in WP if it doesn’t meet WP:V standards.

2864:

Could somebody with better mental faculties than me help me out regarding criticisms of AT. The theory is under represented by those to whom it applies and, in my estimation, the (writers) criticisms are detracting from it's purpose and the esoteric knowledge it represents.

2232:

I have included wording to that effect in the topic sentence of the article and the lead, so as to avoid forking articles for "logical arguments" and "philosophical arguments." Since argument, rational argument, is the medium of philosophical exchange, and since logic is

944:

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

4694:(the whole paragraph) and restore the preexisting paragraphs in that section, which clearly explained the concepts. Why would I rewrite it for you? Why wouldn't I start over based on sources? (assuming an example is required, in addition to the preexisting material). 3290:

therefore, with philosophy articles in WP, we should be guided more by whether the article explains things well, and less by robotic adherence to strict policy, as the latter will inevitably just result in poor quality articles, with all improvements being reverted

1817:"What is it like to be a bat" I read that shortly after it was published in 1974. Takes me back to the time when philosophers wrote interesting and amusing papers - not like the boring, by the numbers, and uninformative papers one gets in the journals today. -- 1401:

Did you intend to ask this at WikiProject Psychology instead? None of these really have much to do with philosophy. Speaking as a neuroscientist, though, I can tell you that I believe both names are okay, although as an American I personally would have used

4812:

Less important, but still worth mentioning, is in relation to your comments to what I wrote about eternalism vs. presentism, like your comment above, where you say 'Anyone old enough to read knows their past from future. It's not even interesting, much less

3794:

This is getting mighty silly! Philogo and MachineElf are clearly trying to bait me into reverting the article so they can entrap me with the 3 revert rule ... but I will keep reverting it, for as long as they keep reverting it for no justifiable reason ...

5003:

referring to just that! Maybe it was Machine Elf who added too much detail, making it obscure again, and then you made a minor change on top of that? You know what? I don't care who it was ... somebody made it obscure again and added too much detail...

2347:

If someone could please help out with this, especially on the issues of substance (1. the topic of the "argument" page, i.e. logic vs. philosophy; and 2. the inclusion of a section on "world-disclosing" arguments), it would be greatly appreciated.

956:

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.

4105:

tells me that “spat the dummy” is a childish temper tantrum, as if an adult spat out their pacifier. Truly a testament to your upstanding character... but you might want to try unhitching the story about how you've been persecuted by others,

1531:

Yep, that is a long headline. Anyway, the idea is that, starting around the first of April, there might be some sort of broadbased discussion of the religion related content here. A basic page for some ideas of such a meeting can be found at

3803:) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I edited as an IP because their constant and unjustified reverting doesn't make my account history look good, as they well know ... I'm perfectly justified to edit as an IP (it is only sockpuppetry with multiple 887:

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.

780:“article creep”. In order to stop article creep we shall have a policy against article creep. In order to implement the policy we will draw up a list of all types of article creep. The list of the types of article creep will be infinite. 2259:

Second, Philogo seems to believe that if an argument can be classified as "deductive" or "inductive" (or presumably some of the other argument types on that page) there can be no more relevant logical features to be explained about it.

1782:

effect at all, no matter how much they gave him. Yost went on to explain how Land invented the Polaroid camera, then went to work for the CIA, which funded the UCLA LSD experiment on him. And if you were stimulated by this to wonder "

3349:. That's the worst kind of "not an essay" article; in fact, it manages to evade the contemporary debate altogether and instead reports on every irrelevant and long-abandoned objection ever made. Some of our style guidelines, such as 951:

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

865:

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.

2497:

Also, bear in mind that MachineElf followed Walkinxyz here from ] where he did little else but test Walkinxyz's and my own patience also. So then he thought it entirely appropriate he should get involved with this dispute too.

2470:

From the talk page: "Opposed: I know of no use of the term "argument" in philosophy distinct from its use in logic." Your knowledge or lack thereof is not relevant. The sources that I provide – which are not books on "logic" –

3518:, but I did undo a revert of my edits, and requested reasons to be given on talk page, rather than simply reverting. I have given a reason for each edit to the lede. I have invited comments from editors on my revisions at 3344:

Well, I did go there only based on this request, and have no previous involvement. I do sympathize with many of your points: I too despise the typical "quote and cite" philosophy article. Take something as important as the

1282: 1137:

nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English).

2505:

Whatever Walkinxyz managed to make out of the hassle (much of his new content is currently precariously threatened by article subject having been restricted to "logic") - his neighbours have not been helping him at all.

2302:

has published a book that discusses some of these logical features in depth. It also discusses a wide range of modern philosophical arguments and forms of argument, all the way back to Kant and Hegel. The book is called

2343:

over the page. In my opinion, his criticisms have greatly improved the content I have been adding, but he has refused to comment on the changes, and instead has engaged in a slow edit war by continually deleting it.

4865:

reiterate your suggestion and neither of you have received an adequate response... precisely because people have their hands full at the moment. I hope that helps to clarify whether “more eyes are not needed after

3916:

You're a real comedian, I was just being polite when I repeated what you said: that you weren't aware you couldn't “deceive , distort , etc.”, (basically, avoid 3RR in violation of community standards), by making

4122:

through my internet past, back to 2008, being sarcastic (i.e., 'In any case, I'm sure you are a lovely person'), and resisting change seemingly out of sheer bloodymindedness, I have to wonder wtf is going on?

3373:

You need to take interpretations directly from the secondary literature, present it without adding any further significant interpretation, and properly attribute it to the person who made that interpretation.

4372:

545:

5. The positions of the parties in a dispute are noteworthy, but they must be clearly marked as such -- in this instance, the position of the Chinese, and a rebuttal using Chinese-published counterexamples.

3873:

You are full of rhetoric! What I actually "admitted" was that I was under the impression that sockpuppetry didn't apply to IPs, because I only read the lede of the policy page on this, and it clearly says

1248:

I did no such thing. I consistently re-worked the wording, removing a word that was objected to ("content") because it was seen as somewhat misleading, then I re-worked it again, and provided a reference.

5153:

The positions of the parties in a dispute are noteworthy, but they must be clearly marked as such -- in this instance, the position of the Chinese, and a rebuttal using Chinese-published counterexamples.

2433:

I don't think you're following what is happening. I have not said anything about an intent to "edit war it." Although Linsabreeny did. Indicating that you don't have "agreement." STOP warring over this.

898:

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.

4546:

Eh? I have written nothing in the first-person. I have not once said 'I ...' anything. You are quoting things above that I was directly quoting from published sources who did write in the first-person!

4763:

Furthermore, not only does the policy forbid more than it intends to forbid, but it fails to prevent what it intends to prevent! To illustrate this, look at the first example given on the policy page:

2160:

I was interested in your mention of "new material in either journals or articles" and "get an A-Class review going". Could you elaborate? If you are interested in setting something up to go beyond the

3851:“At any rate, editing as an IP is the only way to stop other bad editors from deliberately making one's account history look bad, by making numerous unjustified reverts and heavy handed warnings” 4040:

I'll put this as politely as possible in the interest of “a balanced assessment of the situation from ”. The “consortium of professional entomologists/bioinformaticians based mainly in Europe”,

3458:

It is a starting point only, and I had nothing to do with the last two of those references above, so they may actually go, and be replaced by better ones ... it due course. I must protest that

1019:...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place 1455:

regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.

4167:

dimensionalism, the doctrine of temporal parts, and the theory that objects “perdure” — is opposed to “three dimensionalism”, the doctrine that things “endure”, or are “wholly present”.

833:

is a journal that has been around for 65 years, but is now up for AfD. Does anyone have an explanation for the paucity of citations of Spanish language journals by English language ones?

4678:

No, then I say false, otherwise, I try not to speculate on the Land of Make Believe. Yah, firing squad, funny. I imagine, if someone could actually source and salvage, without it being

3325:

Sorry buddy, but you hardly count as an 'as-yet uninvolved editor' ... in fact you are part of the problem, i.e., robotic adherence to strict policy (can you pass captcha tests??) ...

1384: 1361: 735:

example, or the number of examples in the list, or the number of examples in the list plus one? A start to a resolution was made by distinguishing examples from meta-examples, a la the

2252:" that is not about logical or philosophical arguments per se, but rather "the interdisciplinary study of how humans should, can, and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning.") 1773:. This works because the infinitesimal perspective point at which Descartre located your humuncular soul in your pineal gland is actually a vertical “bi-point”, and is related to the “ 199:

The examples in the table are insufficient to resolve the full array of underlying issues which are implicit in the spokeswoman's comments. That is conceptually different than

4897:

This is wrong! Certain editors clearly want to reword what I wrote, without adding anything, just so it reads in a way that suits them and makes it look like they wrote it...

4177:

No text is cited to verify the use of the term to mean eternalism. If the term four-dimensionalism refers to either eternalism or perdurantism, and we have articles on both:

2333:

Philogo believes that a majority view from February (consisting of himself and Machine Elf) supports his deletion of this section, while Linsabreeny and I strongly disagree.

5086:

Then please write in comprehensible English! Perhaps you would like to explain your intended meaning of 'I'm sure you do like the lede as it sits right now. It's yours'?

3849:

so we need to determine what your sock puppet accounts are. Especially since you don't intend to stop, despite numerous efforts from multiple users (i.e. “baiting you”):

905:

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.

803: 117:

The value, utility and necessity of the table are each demonstrated by the terse diff which accompanied the blanket deletion of the illustrative counterexample table --

2374:

article if you insist on including it in the argument article. I agree with Philogo that you should put it in your world-disclosing argument article—just summarize it

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 365:

Partial image of newspaper article: "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953.

152:

the Islands were included in the area over which the United States exercised the administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

4821:, the “common sense” view'. All that this demonstrates is that you simply haven't been able to understand what I have written, so your reaction is to remove it ... 2540:

they don't consider such destructive attitudes a waste of their own time. It is certainly a waste of ours, and a scandal for the WikiPhilosophy project as a whole.

2164:

limitations of Knowledge, then perhaps we can talk further. There are other places in the Wiki-foundation where original research can be conducted and published.--

1480: 4946:

Yes, that is correct! But only because Philogo changed the lede yet again, adding too much detail for a lede, and making it obscure again. Now he is busy adding

1074:

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed.

920: 5061:

So, I'm not allowed to prefer something that I have myself written? Interesting! In general, though, I will not be looking to you for lessons on humility ...

2999:

since before Christmas. I haven't reverted any of it as for all I know their edits here might be okay but in Physics they are just weird and wrong. They are:

4506:

states: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation .

3847:“to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden” 2474:

There should be no problem including a topic definition as including "logic and philosophy" even if what you say is true. You are exhibiting an attitude of

1855:

Since this is a talk page of a WikiProject, not a chat room, if you list your first memory, you then should apply it to how others might improve Knowledge.

2179: 2128: 2074: 4840:

I offered a suggestion, and was told that the current parties to the dispute like their own versions better, so maybe more eyes are not needed after all.

4217:

is often used without specification of exactly what is meant. Often, it is used in the context of the issue of personal identity over time. For example,

1299:

Also, it may be useful to be aware of the language regarding original research versus exposition using secondary sources, which is also discussed on the

2330:

in spite of two editors including myself currently being against such deletion, and in spite of it being extensively sourced and constantly developed.

4791:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since the creation of the UN there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

948:

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.

3738:

was further to Stho002's edits earlier that day. In their next set of coincident edits, the IP claimed he's "under pressure" to remove the additions

1831:

The Nagel pic is a subtle joke. He isn't talking about how me (a bat) can undertand what it is like to be you (whatever), but its an ethics lecture.

908:

I would be happy to do this work, but I think (given the nature of the Article at present) I will need some backup to ensure that my edit stays up.

895:

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.

4777:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

3177: 3163: 3148: 2783:

True, sorry for that. The merger was proposed in 2009 by GregBard, and his rationale may just remain obscure. Please see the merger discussion.

937:, you should consider that philosophy and science do conceive sufficiently different of the notion "Objectivity" to justify different articles. 190:

The table below presents counterexamples as a type of counterargument. The cells of the table are rebuttals to foreign policy position of the

3192: 2571: 1421: 47: 17: 3353:, are unnecessarily restrictive and disallow the kind of writing that makes difficult philosophy accessible. Take the following from SEP on 1293:

is of interest to philosophers specialized in decision theory, philosophy of probability, philosophy of action, philosophy of science, etc.

4745:

kind of synthesis whatsoever! It actually forbids logic! It reduces WP to a list of direct quotations. That is all we can do according to

2949:; The elements of the empty set and the elements of a mathematics constructed from nothing without the aid of r. ad absurdum proofs; Death 2225:

be the topic of the "argument" page, and even though he admits that logic is also a branch of philosophy, he says he has never heard of a

2886: 126: 4591:

So sorry to point these things out so often, but perhaps you could make fewer counter-factual claims? You do write in the first-person

3573:). He apparently intends to ignore that warning, but should remember the 3RR. Comments from other editors on my edits are welcome at 4887: 4438: 3779:(to take credit for shouting at Jimbo about how taxonomy is “NEVER fully objective”, no less. It's his first edit using Stho002, BTW.— 3595:

is out of control and being counterproductive: his edits are making the lede less concise and clear. I suggest we await the return of

3045: 2146:

any of you know, please feel free to list them, and then, maybe next month, we can figure out which journals to send the requests to.

1597: 1593: 1513: 707: 2271:(which are misleadingly named, and not really "transcendental" in any sense). So does philosopher of science Ian Hacking, as well as 4976:

The additional refs are the works cited by Sider in the lede which Stho002 has reverted yet again. The addition of <nowicki: -->

3754:

article he created). The IP didn't participate in any discussions... they're clearly identical, and he was simply referring to his

1331: 669: 251: 2957:; The elements of the empty set and the elements of a mathematics made from nothing; WikiProject Death member comments on theology 941:

reaction to the concept of verification as in logical positivism, and constitutes a rather important idea on how science operates.

4158:

It quotes Sider (Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231.

4425: 4178: 4021:

if you had wanted me to take your suggestion that “we can work together” seriously, you might have refrained from calling me a

3085:

without first seeking the views of other editors. See the talk page. Vandalism? — Philogos (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) —

2475: 2340: 2184: 1196:

must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity. When I recommended the editor would benefit from reading the validity section in

2615:

I consider the recent rewrite of my recent rewrite rather unfortunate. Those interested in the field, please see my remarks:

1966: 1084: 5024:, too much detail, too pedantic! LOL! Welcome to Knowledge, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Thanks for editing!— 2097:, and I tend to be more active in religion) any input of any kind, on the topics above or any others, is more than welcome. 829:

A significant number of countries in the world are spanish speaking. Yet citation of journals from these countries is rare.

1875:, but my misspelling produces 1,850 results on Google, so I am not alone. (It only produced one result on Google Scholar.) 1783: 4298: 4222: 3235: 2616: 2567: 4719:

I think you must have Caligula in mind, but I was speaking of Nero. Still, I'm sure you are in a stable relationship ...

1912:). But this WikiProject rates it as "High importance", and the Version 1.0 Editorial Team rates it as a "vital article". 3962:

edits), so no doubt you can plainly see I'm not an admin. Report yourself, and throw the book at you; give yourself the

3839:

LOL, bait you? News flash, you've 3RRed more than once and we had been kind enough not to report you. On your talk page

3540:

is out of control and being counterproductive. I have no option but to continue to undo his pointless interferences ...

2040: 1452: 880:

is on the entirely different subject of fraud. Again, its inclusion is clearly designed to advance a political agenda.

661: 4708:

Yah, “fiddling while Rome burns”... I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Neither does my horse. Cheerie bye.—

3815:) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Machine Elf is now stooping to the low tactic of dredging up irrelevant issues from 2008! 1863: 1533: 5112:

My bad. I got discouraged too easily. You are right, only one editor was dismissive of my effort. I'll try again.

3287:

therefore, in philosophy, simple "quote and cite" WP articles just aren't worth the paper that they aren't written on!

191: 4603:

Consider the proposition: there was an American president called Reagan. What are the truth conditions? According to

4561:

You are making my point, if I can't tell what is and isn't a quote after reading it sevral times it's written poorly

5076: 5051: 5025: 4867: 4709: 4653: 4111: 3967: 3863: 3780: 3173: 3133: 2707: 2585: 2525: 2397: 2014: 1853:

Logicalgregories frank admission of his age above, stimulated me to ask who remembers their first philosophy book.

1335: 1320: 1225: 1116: 38: 207:, because the scope of rebuttal is limited by the thesis or statement to which the counter-argument is a response. 3188: 2575: 2188:

review might help high quality articles get a bit more attention and input in their final stages of development.

1962: 916: 4877:

It certainly seems to me that more eyes are needed, but as Machine Elf says I have my hands full at the moment.

3422:

Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231.

3311:

BrideOfKripkenstein: I have looked at the article, its history and talk page and I concur with your remarks. —

4049: 3574: 3519: 3482: 3231: 3206: 3159: 2792: 2756: 2685: 2628: 2608: 2268: 2169: 2117: 2031: 1822: 965: 934: 787: 763: 5121: 5095: 5081: 5070: 5056: 5045: 5030: 5013: 4991: 4960: 4940: 4906: 4892: 4872: 4849: 4830: 4802: 4759: 4728: 4714: 4673: 4658: 4584: 4570: 4556: 4535: 4498: 4480: 4458: 4443: 4414: 4387: 4365: 4198: 4131: 4116: 3987: 3972: 3895: 3868: 3824: 3785: 3641: 3612: 3586: 3561: 3531: 3509: 3494: 3475: 3453: 3403: 3388: 3334: 3320: 3303: 3255: 3239: 3213: 3126: 3112: 3094: 3068: 3050: 3025: 2977: 2935: 2898: 2874: 2851: 2820: 2799: 2778: 2763: 2737: 2723: 2692: 2663: 2635: 2599: 2560:

At my Talk (Lisnabreeny), The editor MachineElf, who accuses me of "randomly telling pathetic lies" -writes: "

2549: 2530: 2517: 2458: 2443: 2428: 2402: 2360: 2197: 2173: 2155: 2140: 2121: 2106: 2086: 2062: 2045: 2019: 2003: 1970: 1941: 1884: 1840: 1826: 1811: 1674: 1605: 1575: 1549: 1521: 1492: 1463: 1433: 1415: 1396: 1373: 1340: 1324: 1275: 1229: 1183: 1152: 1120: 1097: 972: 842: 816: 791: 767: 752: 712: 691: 5163: 1300: 549: 3413:

most of the article. The article provides just three references, as below, and only the firat uses the term

3410: 3103:

as to whether the deletion should be reverted. It would be appreciated if you would epres your view there—

2870: 2698:

You are correct. It's a little confusing, is it not, to have two articles to have such very similar names,

1444: 830: 774: 728: 724: 224: 129:(MOFA) on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. 1403: 5117: 4883: 4845: 4434: 4045: 3041: 2711: 1601: 1517: 986: 980: 912: 703: 646: 5050:

Sure, find the diff or put a sock in it. I'm sure you do like the lede as it sits right now. It's yours.—

3886:

rvs being logged on my account history. So, go on, block me for defending myself ... I bet you can't ...

3629: 2926:

of Frege". Does anyone know who first said that? Was it Carnap, Straus, Einstein, Godel, or Riechenbach?

1760:

Above is the SINGLE Barnstar I gave to Logicalgregory, for being the first to conceive of the concept of

1103:

terms nous, intellect, intelligence, mind, understanding - disambiguations, redirects, maybe even merges?

678:

What I'm looking for is (a) agreement with explanations why this is an excellent table in the context of

3959: 3399: 3169: 2595: 2513: 2315:", an idea which Heidegger considered his own most important contribution to modern Western philosophy. 2193: 2151: 2136: 2102: 2082: 1545: 1488: 1380: 1306: 1221: 1112: 1003: 930: 736: 650: 3856:

FYI, the so-called “heavy handed” warning about 3RR from me was just a standard template... which, you

3680:(Undid revision 435400405 by Philogo (talk) I can't stop Philogo from edit warring, I'm only an IP ...) 902:

I suggest that this article needs to be re-written, beginning with a simple definition of objectivity.

4782:

material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to...

1981:

What is the word for a sentence that is true because it is stated? For example, my business card says

1858: 3144: 3064: 2249: 111: 1540:

don't think it would necessarily hurt to have parties involved in both subjects involved. Thoughts?

855:

I was motivated to sign in and change the above article because, frankly, it is embarrassingly bad.

4623:

can only say that, if the past exists. How can Reagan exist in the past if the past doesn't exist?

4315: 4273: 4230: 4084:) before you go any further with that train of thought. In the future, you should definitely avoid 3958:

you. You're an admin on Wikispecies, (with a long history of abusing your tools in support of your

3227: 3220: 3196: 3155: 2996: 2891: 2835: 2828: 2784: 2748: 2677: 2620: 2545: 2439: 2356: 2336:

The section has changed considerably since then, including in response to Philogo's own criticism.

2288: 2280: 2165: 2113: 1818: 1571: 1271: 957: 783: 759: 740: 4951:

but I do have an MA in metaphysics, so why don't I count as an "expert" ... it is very unclear ...

1334:

for their uncanny ability to write math articles I can read. However they do it, it's fine by me.—

4057: 3059:

Semi-protected Omega Point and Terence McKenna. Let me know if any evident socks manage to edit.

3003:

497glbig, 9p4gh9gkj, Antichristos, Creator666, Jsdhgsdjhg, Sage321, Systemizer, Weltherr, Wyhiugl

2866: 2847: 2058: 1774: 1734: 1425: 1411: 1388: 1365: 1290: 1080: 4923:) has just reverted the lede again (and, for good measure removed the 'expert needed' flag). — 4053: 4044:, is a community-owned wiki (on which you're a bureaucrat) that that hosts a project of yours, 2411:

page, and proceeded as agreed - i.e. to delete it. I suggested it be inserted into the article

697:

I have to agree with 'the other guy' here. This seems mostly unrelated to the subject at hand.

4786:

But, you can imply the same conclusion, without combining anything, purely by sequencing, thus:

3954:

I didn't say we had been kind enough not to “block” you, I said we had been kind enough not to

3522:. I there set out the lede before and after my edits for the convenience of other editors. — 1744: 5220: 5197: 5185: 5142: 5113: 5091: 5066: 5041: 5009: 4987: 4956: 4936: 4928: 4920: 4902: 4878: 4841: 4826: 4798: 4755: 4724: 4669: 4580: 4552: 4514:

Here are some quotes from your explanation section’s first paragraph that are in violation of

4494: 4454: 4429: 4410: 4383: 4361: 4194: 4127: 3983: 3891: 3820: 3812: 3800: 3637: 3608: 3582: 3570: 3557: 3545: 3527: 3505: 3490: 3471: 3449: 3330: 3316: 3299: 3251: 3122: 3108: 3090: 3036: 2816: 2774: 2733: 2719: 2659: 2454: 2424: 2299: 2241: 2027: 1976:

What is the word for a sentence that is true because it is stated? Its similar to "autogenic".

1925: 1799: 1475:

An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the

1257:

under discussion here, I have provided further explanations and references. See the talk page

1179: 1145: 1013: 993: 698: 626: 599: 591:、先島諸島、大東諸島、冲繩諸島、大島諸島、土噶喇諸島，毎組都有許多大小島嶼、大隈諸島等七組島嶼，總計共有五十個以上有名稱的島嶼和四百多個無名小島，全部陸地面積爲四千六百七十平方公里。 571: 565: 540: 514: 505: 496: 438: 280: 272:、先島諸島、大東諸島、冲繩諸島、大島諸島、土噶喇諸島，毎組都有許多大小島嶼、大隈諸島等七組島嶼，總計共有五十個以上有名稱的島嶼和四百多個無名小島，全部陸地面積爲四千六百七十平方公里。 256: 175: 150: 4697:

Anyone old enough to read knows their past from future. It's not even interesting, much less

4189:

then this article appears to be redundant, a point already raised on the discussion page. —

2953:

Much ado about [[nothing on the talk pages there now; Discussion of visual representaions of

2339:

Philogo has, in my opinion, been exhibiting behaviour that very strongly suggests a sense of

1921: 1296:

The proposed decision contains wording about "complex Bayesian solution" of special concern.

4420:

If you're unable to contribute within the Knowledge guidelines, you should not contribute.

4401:

of necessity, a rather significant component of interpretation, which, as I pointed out, is

4332: 4102: 3395: 3100: 2591: 2509: 2412: 2371: 2312: 2295:

and many, many others who have influenced or been at the centre of 20th century philosophy.

2292: 2189: 2147: 2132: 2098: 2078: 2035: 1872: 1541: 1484: 1429: 1392: 1369: 1240: 1209: 1193: 1092: 687: 4061: 3947:

reverting 5 more times). It was merely some kind of happy accident that you got logged-off.

4683: 4566: 4531: 4476: 4344: 4034: 3569:

has already been given a warning by another editor about edit warring in the article: see

3384: 3346: 3140: 3060: 2988: 2743: 1213: 679: 657: 367:*NOTE: In second character cluster of the second line of the published text, see Japanese 220: 2904:

Ongoing discussion of Frege, Church, Russell, Death, Nothing, Color, and Humor vs. Humour

2390:

over it. I've had enough abuse from you that I'd be happy to stay out of it if you could

4463:

If your issue is with a core policy, maybe you should be bringing up your objections in

2908: 2464: 2226: 4186: 4101:

been a net-positive at Wikispecies. In any case, I'm sure you are a lovely person. The

4081: 3729: 3021: 2973: 2931: 2541: 2479: 2435: 2416: 2352: 2284: 1999: 1937: 1880: 1836: 1807: 1778: 1738: 1670: 1567: 1476: 1267: 1088: 1046: 1024: 838: 812: 748: 3354: 926:

Maybe the article is not very good, but what improvements do you exactly have in mind?

873:

does not properly place objectivity in the context of the various scientific methods.

4746: 4741: 4679: 4515: 4507: 4094:

here on WP, especially for a subject on which you've been the sole contributor there.

4065: 3350: 2923: 2858: 2843: 2647: 2180:

Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting#Topics poorly covered in reliable sources

2054: 1407: 1258: 1205: 1171: 1167: 1076: 682:; or (b) disagreement with explanations which help me to understand what I do not. -- 4705:, the “common sense” view. I'm sure salient examples can be found in the literature. 4306:

2005: Four-dimensionalism: an ontology of persistence and time. By Theodore Sider.

2419:

has declared his intent to "edit war it" but has not siad what he means by that. —

1953:

I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a

1527:

Proposal for potential broadbased wikipedia religion and philosophy online "meeting"

5087: 5062: 5037: 5005: 4983: 4952: 4932: 4924: 4916: 4898: 4822: 4794: 4751: 4720: 4691: 4687: 4665: 4576: 4575:

Is it my fault if you can't read standard conventions like single quotation marks?

4548: 4490: 4450: 4406: 4379: 4357: 4265: 4245: 4241: 4190: 4182: 4123: 4091: 3979: 3887: 3816: 3808: 3796: 3633: 3604: 3600: 3592: 3578: 3566: 3553: 3541: 3537: 3523: 3501: 3486: 3467: 3459: 3445: 3376: 3326: 3312: 3295: 3247: 3118: 3104: 3086: 2812: 2770: 2729: 2715: 2703: 2699: 2673: 2655: 2651: 2450: 2420: 2010: 1913: 1509: 1175: 1141: 1134: 4619:

can say the following: there is an American president called Reagan, in the past.

4156:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism.

1620: 664:

in the pyramid-shaped graphic of a "hierarchy of disagreement" based on the essay

5184:(No one may set himself in contradiction to his own previous conduct); and MOFA, 3437: 564:(No one may set himself in contradiction to his own previous conduct); and MOFA, 4637: 4522: 4511:

fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints

4503: 4468: 4464: 4421: 4261: 3963: 3139:

Virtually no discussion of the book at all, just a CliffsNotes sort of article.

3082: 3032: 2992: 2962: 2954: 2946: 2272: 1917: 1638: 1456: 1357: 1350: 1201: 852:

Hi, I'm a newbie. I hope you'll forgive me if I started off on the wrong foot.

683: 492: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3281:

in many areas, like science, interpretation isn't usually too much of a problem

1629: 4818: 4814: 4702: 4698: 4612: 4604: 4562: 4527: 4472: 4336: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4225:, at least in the first edition of this book, does not appear to use the term 3596: 3463: 3462:

has gone and rewritten the lede yet again, adding nothing of substance, after

3380: 2839: 2276: 1947: 1761: 488: 200: 1958:

translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

1107:

I started a discussion about the above mentioned subject. But please respond

576:

9. In context of Chinese text, one crucial place name is printed in Japanese

4641: 3193:

Knowledge Talk:WikiProject Literature#Question re: Category:Literary critics

3017: 2969: 2927: 2053:

term "self-fulfilling" statement (e.g. "This is a formal written notice.").

1995: 1933: 1876: 1832: 1803: 1666: 1127: 834: 808: 744: 5179: 2326:

I created a section on "world-disclosing" arguments, that Philogo has been

1795: 1422:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Psychology#Aha! Effect and Executive dysfunction

719:

The Knowledge article creep paradox: meta-examples and intentional contexts

559: 4252:, but does so in an opening paragraph that mentions all four -isms (i.e., 2319:

notability of this subject is indicated in a review of the book published

1066:

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

665: 2408: 2367: 2320: 2245: 2215: 1868: 1787: 1469: 1259:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1197: 1172:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1168:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1163: 1055: 675:

If my writing is unclear or inadequately presented, please ask questions.

4236:

offers an explanation of the terminology which (fairly) clearly equates

2742:

The merger would be fine, and I will comment there. However, please see

2942: 1909: 1905: 1890: 1791: 1505: 1498: 3548:) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) The article will be added to and improved 1158:

Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments - proposed deletion of paragraph

4485:

It is not clearly a violation of that policy ... the policy is being

3035:

are primarily/entirely nonsense. I haven't looked at the others yet.

1217: 442: 204: 4162:) as using the term to mean perdurantism. (Sider's actual words are 4159: 3423: 3375:

This is a point where compromise is not possible. You cannot ignore

3007:

And they've used at least the following ips based in St Petersburg:

2676:. The one with the capital F refers to a linguistics-specific term. 4060:) are lovely wikis, and notable in their field(s), along with your 3430: 2769:

If you look you will see the merge was propsed by another editor.—

1166:

does not enhance the article amd should be deleted - see talk page

858:

I agree 100% with all the criticisms in the top box at the Article

4449:

least bad interpretation of policy) is non-negotiable??? Hmmm ...

2237:(but not only) a branch of philosophy, I think this change helps. 1929: 1908:! The article sucks (like vacuum of a box filled to the brim with 1901: 1898: 1743: 1653:

The Barnstar of Notability, For seminal ideas in philosophy, like

446: 409: 369: 250: 3599:, whose opinion (and demeanor) seems more balanced, but I expect 3031:

At a first glance it looks like the hundreds (!) of additions to

1033: 3744:. (The IP uses the same edit summary when removing the material 3417:

which does not appear in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

3117:

The deletion was reverted. The article however lack citations—

2478:

and destructive behaviour that is strong evidence of bad faith.

2407:

I suggested the deletion of this paragraph both here and on the

1765:

headers - "The Barnstar of Notability in Philosophy" above as a

1655:

creating the concept of "notability" in Knowledge article space.

1108: 3278:, different to OR, and not necessarily in contravention of NPOV 1208:

and assume the philosophers were in a whimsical mood, but as a

110:

An illustrative table is construed as "overall bad editing" at

4980:

adding too much detail for a lede, and making it obscure again

4471:

instead of insisting on violating currently establish policy?

3761: 3751: 2916: 2912: 1200:, they promptly inserted their POV in that article. I haven't 847: 118: 25: 4268:), stating that 'in analytical metaphysics, there are three, 2214:

Philogo has been arguing with me and Linsabreeny over on the

3716:(Undid revision 435382778 by Philogo (talk) yes, please do!) 3246:

it has to be "all loves and hugs", if you see what I mean??

2842:). Additional comments are very much appreciated. Thanks. - 3939:

history, should be recorded in said edit history. However,

3371:

unattributed must be neutral, obvious and uncontroversial.

2887:

Knowledge:Reference_desk/Humanities#Name_of_the_philosopher

2654:. Unfortunately neither article does the subject justice— 2218:

talk page. There are a couple of issues of substance here.

5198:

The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands

4521:

Also, much of your “Explanation” section doesn’t meet the

3081:

The editor Lorem has deleted a large part of the article

572:

The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands

3436:"Time". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002-11-25. 4041: 3941:

you took no steps to prevent that from being the case...

3728:

Add them to the half dozen or so by Stho002... it's his

3516:

the the lede which Vesal and myself were both happy with

2502:

or an admin?, all this is more your concern than mine.

1362:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages

5020: 4969: 4966: 4086: 4023: 3934:

Crazy as it sounds, what's hilarious is that you think

3858: 3841: 3771: 3756: 3746: 3740: 3734: 3707: 3689: 3671: 3653: 2945:

on the talk pages there now; Visual representations of

2617:

Talk:Philosophy of perception#Lede rewrite (April 2011)

2580: 2392: 2386: 2380: 2327: 2112:

What is the "MILHIST" project? Is there a link to it?--

1654: 1588: 1420:

Thank you for the correction and input. I've posted at

4855:

The “current parties” you're referring to are Stho002

3921:

in addition to the one you made while still logged-on

3882:

to deceive, distort, etc., but purely to stop further

3284:

in philosophy, interpretation is a much bigger problem

1266:

It's a fringe challenge to which well-defined terms?

739:. Does the notion of meta-examples there introduce an 4356:

who wrote what sentence in a typical encyclopedia...

4244:(by using the term 'four-dimensional' in relation to 2747:

been previous consensus on the one with a capital F.

885:

Objectivity in experimental set-up and interpretation

4172:

Sider, Four Dimensionalism, Philosophical Review 106

3603:

cannot wait 5 minutes without interfering again ...

2987:

A banned sockpuppeteer has been editing articles on

2463:

You mean like the view that you've never heard of a

1989:

Curry's paradox, "If this sentence is true, than A."

1360:

for accuracy and whether it is correctly named? See

645:

This small article has enhanced significance in the

1133:I've finished major work on this article. Before a 649:which is essential to the continued success of our 4817:, if that's it supposedly is? It sounds more like 4701:, if that's it supposedly is? It sounds more like 3552:, but I have other things to be doing as well ... 3260:Furthermore, my argument is in essence as follows: 863:Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity 848:I'd Like to Change the Objectivity-Science Article 773:I don't think the creep paradox is well stated at 3466:and I had both settled on an acceptable lede ... 2642:Proposed merge of Argument Form into Logical form 807:. I'm still pondering for a total response... :) 598:, MOFA provisional translation of 1st paragraph: 279:, MOFA provisional translation of 1st paragraph: 5233:4th page of the digitially archived copy of the 635:4th page of the digitially archived copy of the 4164: 3862:and went on to commit an additional 5 reverts.— 3481:I have invited comments on the revised lede at 3359: 3131: 987:Recent changes were made to citations templates 981:Citation templates now support more identifiers 424: 384: 173: 148: 5215: 5213: 5211: 5209: 5207: 5205: 4323:1985: Can amoebae divide without multiplying? 3662:(somebody pls control rogue editor Philogo...) 3438:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TimTra 3431:http://en.wikisource.org/The_Unreality_of_Time 2590:23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)" , -Best Regards: 1661:something new under the sun" is true if there 1481:Knowledge:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1 1243:must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity." 416: 376: 3628:The revised lede was reverted three times by 3409:Without more citations it is not possible to 2298:One of the leading critical theorists today, 1356:Would a WikiProject Philosophy editor review 911:What can I do to get support for and edit? -- 8: 4297:. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2838:'s title has been simmering for a few days ( 1790:Lewis Caroll's Cheshire Cat - "Alice:'I see 731:? Can you even well define it? Is that list 303:釣魚台群島 ..... traditional Chinese</ref: --> 3878:. Furthermore, as I said I edited as an IP 2706:. Perhaps one or other shuld be renamed as 2129:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/News 2075:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting 1871:article. (Incidentally, I just missspelled 1239:"The editor began by insisting the lead of 4690:. Yes, all I've done is try to remove the 4636:however, seem to raise issues relating to 3931:from me about your existing 3RR violation. 3187:I've posted a question on how to organize 1192:The editor began by insisting the lead of 413:characters identifying the Senkaku Islands 5137: 5135: 5133: 4773:A simple example of original synthesis: 3226:There is a not-quite-edit-war brewing at 2178:One of the sections of the meeting page, 1932:box does not always mean its then full). 5164:"Inside the Ring: China-Japan Tensions," 5075:What's your problem? I didn't say that.— 3777:which Stho002 signed-off on in Nov 2008, 2248:, and there is an important article on " 1647:The Barnstar of Notability in Philosophy 1611:The Barnstar of Notability in Philosophy 1170:. Opinions of other editors invited at 1162:I have suggested that the new paragraph 550:"Inside the Ring: China-Japan Tensions," 5129: 4286:1976: Survival and identity. Pp. 17-40 3271:, you can only make direct cited quotes 2267:, disagrees – including with regard to 1220:article would be more than sufficient? 1216:weight, and perhaps a few words in the 804:First Law of Philosophical Significance 3183:Question re: Category:Literary critics 1798:'". Here, here, does anyone here hear 1212:challenge to well defined terms, it's 1060: 1056:http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 1053: 1042: 1038: 1031: 1020: 373:characters identifying Senkaku Islands 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3575:Talk:Four-dimensionalism#revised lede 3520:Talk:Four-dimensionalism#revised lede 3483:Talk:Four-dimensionalism#revised lede 3429:"The Unreality of Time". Wikisource. 2572:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 2240:(Currently, there is a redirect from 2221:First, he insists that an "argument" 2127:Sorry about that. I was referring to 2068:Request for input in discussion forum 1283:ArbCom decision on Monty Hall Problem 1164:Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments 1142:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 513:Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at 504:Rebuttal and refutation, see MOFA at 401:published in China in 1960 *NOTE: At 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 4489:overly strictly to suit agendas ... 4396:way to interpret P is in context of 4076:—but you probably ought to read the 3267:you cannot explain anything without 3168:Thanks for pointing that out Doug!-- 2368:section on world-disclosing argument 1897:(Misquoting T.S. Elliot) Leave your 871:The role of the scientific community 4064:project, but it's easy to run into 2581:Another unprovoked personal attack. 2415:in which it may be more relevant. 1904:in ivory towers and participate in 4740:Now this issue is very important: 4325:Australasian journal of philosophy 3698:(rv lede (Philogo out of control)) 1594:Talk:Free election (Polish throne) 24: 5221:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 4160:http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf 3424:http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf 2728:What about the proposed merger?— 2672:The article to be merged into is 1864:The Rise of Scientific Philosophy 1534:User:John Carter/Religion meeting 627:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 515:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 506:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 497:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 257:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3 4405:the same as opinion, bias, etc. 3950:I'd wager no one took your bet, 3132:Dreadful article on Hume's book 3101:talk:metaphysics#Recent deletion 3099:I have sought editors' views at 2561: 1994:Is there an article about this? 1637: 1628: 1619: 1451:I have started an important RFC 112:Talk:Counterargument#Coatracking 29: 4931:) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — 4424:is non-negotiable: it's one of 4080:page on that one (not just the 4027:when you reverted with your IP— 3274:interpretation is different to 2185:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 775:Knowledge article creep paradox 725:Knowledge article creep paradox 622:釣魚台群島 ..... traditional Chinese 587:琉球群島散佈在我國台灣東北和日本九洲島西南之間的海面上，包括 268:琉球群島散佈在我國台灣東北和日本九洲島西南之間的海面上，包括 3769:Here's another New Zealand IP 2574:. If you continue, you may be 1034:http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567 619:钓鱼台群岛 ..... simplified Chinese 300:钓鱼台群岛 ..... simplified Chinese 1: 5181:venire contra factum proprium 4050:Wikispecies User:Stho002 page 3845:you didn't know using IPs to 3500:warnings on my talk page ... 2570:other editors, as you did on 2393:stop dragging my name into it 1665:something new under the sun. 1364:for related history. Thanks, 1276:08:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1230:08:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1184:02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 929:As to the proposed merger of 792:05:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 768:04:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 753:02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 713:20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 692:18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 561:venire contra factum proprium 5186:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4 5143:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4 4056:(and their service-sponsor, 3012:92.100.183.77, 95.55.115.125 2857:Request for input regarding 2827:Request for input regarding 2378:and link—apparently you and 2370:which doesn't need it's own 2311:and Heidegger's concept of " 2256:reasoning, is out of place. 1784:What is it like to be a bat? 878:Deliberate misrepresentation 566:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4 541:Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4 4965:Here are my edits: to lede 4030:your third revert yesterday 3195:. Please chime in. Thanks! 2889:. Please look for it there. 1983:"World's Greatest Braggart" 462: 425: 385: 322: 245: 240: 235: 228:Japanese counter-arguments 215: 127:Ministry of Foreign Affairs 5255: 4978:does not seem to me to be 3134:A Treatise of Human Nature 2821:02:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 2800:10:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2779:02:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2764:01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2738:00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2724:00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 2708:Logical Form (linguistics) 2693:01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2664:00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2646:It has been proposed that 2636:13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2600:20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 2550:01:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 2531:23:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 2518:23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2198:20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 2174:07:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 2156:20:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2141:18:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2122:02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2107:18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2063:21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2046:04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) 2020:19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 2004:03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1971:04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 1812:10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1675:09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1606:04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 1576:21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 1550:14:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 1522:06:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 1493:00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 1464:02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC) 1434:22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 1424:about these two articles. 1416:16:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 1397:09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 1374:05:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 1341:19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1325:12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 1037:), now you can simply use 893:Objectivity in measurement 192:People's Republic of China 164:Rebuttal by counterexample 5169:(US). September 15, 2010. 5122:14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 5096:00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 5082:00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 5071:00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 5057:00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 5046:00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 5031:23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 5014:23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4992:13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4961:01:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4941:01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4907:01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4893:00:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4873:19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 4850:14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 4831:08:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4803:03:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 4760:07:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4729:01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 4715:06:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4674:01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4659:01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4611:cannot say! According to 4595:for no particular reason: 4585:01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 4571:15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 4557:23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4536:15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4499:01:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4481:17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 4459:21:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 4444:15:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 4426:Knowledge's core policies 4415:22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 4388:22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 4366:21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 4337:10.1080/00048408512341901 4295:The identities of persons 4199:23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 4185:, and, for good measure, 4132:23:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 4117:12:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 3988:07:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 3973:06:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 3896:01:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 3869:17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 3825:04:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 3786:02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 3732:. The IP's first edit in 3718:(Tag: references removed) 3700:(Tag: references removed) 3682:(Tag: references removed) 3664:(Tag: references removed) 3642:22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3613:04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3587:04:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3562:03:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3532:02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3510:01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 3495:22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 3476:21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 3454:14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 3404:12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3389:10:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3335:05:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3321:04:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3304:03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3256:02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 3240:19:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 3214:17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 3189:Category:Literary critics 3178:07:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 3164:06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 3149:16:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 3127:21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 3113:01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 3095:00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 3069:16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 2978:04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 2459:04:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2444:00:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2429:03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2403:14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 2361:10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 2087:15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1942:16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 1885:05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1841:05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1827:03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1592:is under discussion, see 1508:is under discussion, see 1303:'s talk page. Sincerely, 1153:23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 1121:09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 1098:02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) 973:02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 921:02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 843:19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 817:20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 555:(US). September 15, 2010. 479: 474: 469: 465: 417: 377: 345: 337: 329: 325: 242: 237: 232: 218: 4033:. You can, at least, be 3440:). Retrieved 2008-12-15. 3051:20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 3026:15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2936:14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC) 2899:10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 2811:the merge was executed— 2609:Philosophy of perception 2578:from editing Knowledge. 2269:transcendental arguments 2223:in logic and logic alone 1924:, so check it out, too ( 1479:. The discussion is at 1330:I'm forever grateful to 1126:B-class review request: 935:Objectivity (philosophy) 482: 477: 472: 351: 348: 343: 340: 335: 332: 3433:. Retrieved 2008-12-15. 2880:Name of the philosopher 2875:09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 2852:03:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 2307:– as in Kant's seminal 2305:Critique and Disclosure 2265:Philosophical Arguments 2263:Charles Taylor, in his 2210:The "argument" argument 1987:"I am speaking to you." 1752:like, but what does it 1445:Evolutionary psychology 1301:WikiProject Mathematics 1289:The arbitration on the 495:statement, see MOFA at 225:Senkaku Islands dispute 4175: 3936:wantonly violating 3RR 3764:article from deletion. 3760:in trying to save his 3364: 2465:philosophical argument 2227:philosophical argument 1849:First childhood memory 1757: 831:Información Filosófica 825:A hole in this project 647:argumentative dialogue 259: 180: 155: 4042:http://species-id.net 3741:Stho002 actually made 3571:User talk:Stho002#3RR 2030:. Have you tried the 1747: 1477:good article criteria 1404:executive disfunction 1381:Executive dysfunction 931:Objectivity (science) 737:Frege church ontology 662:WP:Dispute resolution 651:collaborative editing 254: 42:of past discussions. 4859:. In fact, Philogos 4152:BrideOfKripkenstein. 4074:saying are a problem 4048:, according to your 3514:I have not reverted 3219:More eyes needed at 2712:Logical form (logic) 2250:argumentation theory 2162:no original research 2026:Sounds similar to a 1963:The Egyptian Liberal 1748:Yes, that's what it 1383:(also from the same 723:Can you resolve the 660:" is highlighted at 5018:He's talking about 4392:Clarification: the 4238:four-dimensionalism 4227:four-dimensionalism 4215:four-dimensionalism 3859:summarily dismissed 3630:user:130.216.201.45 3415:Four-dimensionalism 3232:BrideOfKripkenstein 3228:Four-dimensionalism 3221:Four-dimensionalism 2997:Teilhard de Chardin 2885:I've moved this to 2836:Ralph Waldo Emerson 2829:Ralph Waldo Emerson 2289:Ludwig Wittgenstein 2281:George Herbert Mead 1379:Please also review 1253:As for the article 741:intentional context 4467:to try and change 3757:efforts as Stho002 3154:Pounds Sterling.-- 1758: 1291:Monty Hall problem 346:Support Statement 338:Support Statement 330:Support Statement 260: 243:Counterargument 3 238:Counterargument 2 233:Counterargument 1 203:of the underlying 185:Illustrative table 4891: 4442: 3049: 2300:Nikolas Kompridis 2242:rational argument 2044: 2028:performative verb 1857:My first one was 1794:', Cat:"'My, you 1332:WP mathematicians 1318: 1285:: Decision theory 1061:|jstor=0123456789 711: 666:"How to Disagree" 641: 630: 528: 524: 522: 521: 457: 456: 439:maritime boundary 317: 316: 255:Cited by MOFA at 166: 165: 141: 140: 139:Rebuttal in prose 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5246: 5239: 5237:, 8 January 1953 5229: 5223: 5217: 5200: 5194: 5188: 5176: 5170: 5167:Washington Times 5160: 5154: 5151: 5145: 5139: 5079: 5054: 5028: 5023: 4977:</nowiki: --> 4881: 4870: 4712: 4656: 4631: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4610: 4432: 4376:only real option 4322: 4314:ISSN: 1566-5399 4305: 4292: 4285: 4276: 4233: 4220: 4173: 4114: 4103:urban dictionary 4089: 4026: 3970: 3866: 3861: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3783: 3774: 3759: 3749: 3743: 3737: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3710: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3692: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3674: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3656: 3211: 3204: 3201: 3170:Andrew Lancaster 3039: 2983:Sockpuppet edits 2896: 2895: 2797: 2791: 2787: 2761: 2755: 2751: 2690: 2684: 2680: 2633: 2627: 2623: 2588: 2583: 2565: 2564: 2528: 2494:non-philosophy. 2482:(not logged in). 2413:world disclosure 2400: 2395: 2389: 2383: 2372:world disclosure 2366:It's about your 2313:world disclosure 2293:Martin Heidegger 2038: 2017: 1920:article is also 1873:Hans Reichenbach 1859:Hans Riechenbach 1641: 1632: 1623: 1591: 1460: 1338: 1317: 1315: 1304: 1241:appeal to nature 1222:Machine Elf 1735 1194:appeal to nature 1150: 1148: 1113:Andrew Lancaster 1096: 1062: 1058: 1051: 1050: 1040: 1039:|arxiv=0123.4567 1036: 1029: 1028: 1018: 1012: 1008: 1002: 998: 992: 970: 964: 960: 729:WP:Article creep 701: 639:, 8 January 1953 632: 609: 590: 553:Washington Times 548:6. Gertz, Bill. 530: 527: 523: 463: 436: 430: 428: 422: 421: 420: 406: 390: 388: 382: 381: 380: 323: 290: 271: 216: 163: 162: 138: 137: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5254: 5253: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5245: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5230: 5226: 5218: 5203: 5195: 5191: 5177: 5173: 5161: 5157: 5152: 5148: 5140: 5131: 5077: 5052: 5026: 5019: 4868: 4857:in the singular 4710: 4654: 4645: 4629: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4608: 4348: 4320: 4303: 4290: 4283: 4274: 4270:closely related 4231: 4218: 4174: 4171: 4112: 4087:using that wiki 4085: 4022: 3968: 3864: 3857: 3850: 3846: 3840: 3781: 3770: 3755: 3747:Stho002's added 3745: 3739: 3733: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711:, 21 June 2011 3706: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693:, 21 June 2011 3688: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675:, 21 June 2011 3670: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657:, 21 June 2011 3652: 3347:problem of evil 3224: 3207: 3202: 3197: 3185: 3137: 3079: 2989:Terence_McKenna 2985: 2951: 2941:Much ado about 2922:"Church is the 2906: 2893: 2892: 2882: 2862: 2834:A debate about 2832: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2650:be merged into 2644: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2613: 2586: 2579: 2562: 2526: 2398: 2391: 2385: 2379: 2212: 2070: 2015: 1978: 1951: 1895: 1851: 1742: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1634: 1633: 1625: 1624: 1613: 1587: 1584: 1529: 1502: 1473: 1458: 1449: 1354: 1336: 1307: 1305: 1287: 1160: 1151: 1146: 1140: 1131: 1105: 1075: 1044: 1041:, likewise for 1022: 1016: 1010: 1006: 1000: 996: 990: 984: 966: 962: 958: 913:Stephenrwheeler 861:The section on 850: 827: 721: 680:Counterargument 658:counterargument 607: 588: 432: 418: 414: 407:, see Japanese 402: 378: 374: 288: 269: 221:Senkaku Islands 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5252: 5250: 5241: 5240: 5235:People's Daily 5224: 5201: 5189: 5171: 5155: 5146: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4706: 4695: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4519: 4512: 4347: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4331:(3): 299–319. 4318: 4308:Ars Disputandi 4301: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4187:temporal parts 4169: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4095: 4038: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3960:WP:TENDENTIOUS 3948: 3932: 3919:4 more reverts 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3854: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3789: 3788: 3766: 3765: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3704: 3686: 3668: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3442: 3441: 3434: 3427: 3419: 3418: 3355:temporal parts 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3285: 3282: 3279: 3272: 3269:interpretation 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3223: 3217: 3184: 3181: 3156:Logicalgregory 3136: 3130: 3078: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3054: 3053: 3014: 3013: 3005: 3004: 2984: 2981: 2967: 2966: 2950: 2939: 2905: 2902: 2881: 2878: 2861: 2855: 2831: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2786:Morton Shumway 2750:Morton Shumway 2726: 2696: 2679:Morton Shumway 2643: 2640: 2622:Morton Shumway 2612: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2534: 2533: 2492: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2480:User:Walkinxyz 2472: 2468: 2405: 2381:your associate 2285:Edmund Husserl 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2166:Logicalgregory 2114:Logicalgregory 2110: 2109: 2069: 2066: 2051: 2049: 2048: 2032:reference desk 2023: 2022: 2007: 2006: 1991: 1990: 1977: 1974: 1950: 1945: 1894: 1888: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1819:Logicalgregory 1796:have good eyes 1779:Robert M. Yost 1741: 1739:Robert M. Yost 1733:No article on 1731: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1646: 1645: 1636: 1635: 1627: 1626: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1564: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1528: 1525: 1501: 1496: 1472: 1467: 1448: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1353: 1348: 1346: 1344: 1343: 1286: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1263: 1262: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1233: 1232: 1159: 1156: 1139: 1130: 1124: 1104: 1101: 1072: 1071: 983: 978: 977: 976: 959:Morton Shumway 953: 949: 946: 942: 938: 927: 849: 846: 826: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 795: 794: 784:Logicalgregory 760:Logicalgregory 720: 717: 716: 715: 643: 642: 637:People's Daily 629: 623: 620: 617: 614: 605: 602: 596:People's Daily 592: 585: 584: 574: 568: 556: 546: 543: 537: 536: 535: 526: 525: 520: 519: 517: 511: 509: 501: 499: 484: 483: 481: 478: 476: 473: 471: 467: 466: 459: 458: 455: 454: 452: 449: 396: 394: 391: 366: 363: 361: 358: 353: 352: 350: 347: 344: 342: 339: 336: 334: 331: 327: 326: 319: 318: 315: 314: 312: 309: 307: 306: 305: 301: 298: 295: 286: 283: 277:People's Daily 273: 263: 261: 247: 246: 244: 241: 239: 236: 234: 230: 229: 227: 211: 209: 208: 196: 195: 188: 187: 186: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 142: 107: 106:Disputed table 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5251: 5238: 5236: 5228: 5225: 5222: 5216: 5214: 5212: 5210: 5208: 5206: 5202: 5199: 5193: 5190: 5187: 5183: 5182: 5175: 5172: 5168: 5165: 5162:Gertz, Bill. 5159: 5156: 5150: 5147: 5144: 5138: 5136: 5134: 5130: 5123: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5080: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5055: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5029: 5022: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5011: 5007: 5002: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4970: 4967: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4949: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4889: 4885: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4871: 4864: 4863: 4858: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4783: 4778: 4774: 4764: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4743: 4738: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4713: 4707: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4682:, that fixes 4681: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4657: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4643: 4639: 4634: 4614: 4606: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4545: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4524: 4520: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4440: 4436: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4399: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4368: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4319: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4302: 4300: 4296: 4289: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4278: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4228: 4224: 4216: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4168: 4163: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4115: 4109: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4093: 4088: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4073: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4036: 4032: 4031: 4025: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3971: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3946: 3942: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3925: 3920: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3867: 3860: 3855: 3843: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3787: 3784: 3778: 3773: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3753: 3748: 3742: 3736: 3731: 3727: 3726: 3717: 3709: 3705: 3699: 3691: 3687: 3681: 3673: 3669: 3663: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3550:in due course 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3439: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3391: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3368: 3363: 3358: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3289: 3286: 3283: 3280: 3277: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3265: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3222: 3218: 3216: 3215: 3212: 3210: 3205: 3200: 3194: 3190: 3182: 3180: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3151: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3135: 3129: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3076: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3052: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2982: 2980: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2956: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2924:reincarnation 2920: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2903: 2901: 2900: 2897: 2890: 2888: 2879: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867:Filmmaker2011 2860: 2859:Auteur Theory 2856: 2854: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2801: 2798: 2796: 2788: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2765: 2762: 2760: 2752: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2689: 2681: 2675: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648:Argument form 2641: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2632: 2624: 2618: 2610: 2607: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2582: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568:do not attack 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2532: 2529: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2394: 2388: 2384:would rather 2382: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2316: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2236: 2230: 2228: 2224: 2219: 2217: 2209: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2067: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2047: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1956: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1848: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1640: 1631: 1622: 1610: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1589:free election 1586:The usage of 1582:Free election 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1537: 1535: 1526: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1504:The usage of 1500: 1497: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1465: 1462: 1454: 1446: 1443: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1342: 1339: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1316: 1314: 1310: 1302: 1297: 1294: 1292: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1157: 1155: 1154: 1149: 1143: 1136: 1129: 1125: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1057: 1049:|0123456789}} 1048: 1035: 1026: 1015: 1005: 995: 988: 982: 979: 974: 971: 969: 961: 954: 950: 947: 943: 939: 936: 932: 928: 925: 924: 923: 922: 918: 914: 909: 906: 903: 900: 896: 894: 889: 886: 881: 879: 874: 872: 867: 864: 859: 856: 853: 845: 844: 840: 836: 832: 824: 818: 814: 810: 806: 805: 799: 798: 797: 796: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777:. Let me try: 776: 772: 771: 770: 769: 765: 761: 755: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 718: 714: 709: 705: 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 689: 685: 681: 676: 673: 671: 667: 663: 659: 654: 652: 648: 640: 638: 631: 628: 624: 621: 618: 615: 613: 612:Senkaku Shotō 606: 603: 601: 597: 593: 586: 583: 582:Senkaku Shotō 579: 575: 573: 569: 567: 563: 562: 557: 554: 551: 547: 544: 542: 538: 533: 532: 531: 529: 518: 516: 512: 510: 508: 507: 502: 500: 498: 494: 490: 487:Rebuttal and 486: 485: 468: 464: 461: 460: 453: 450: 448: 444: 440: 435: 427: 426:Senkaku Shotō 412: 411: 405: 400: 397: 395: 392: 387: 386:Senkaku Shotō 372: 371: 364: 362: 359: 355: 354: 328: 324: 321: 320: 313: 310: 308: 302: 299: 296: 294: 293:Senkaku Shotō 287: 284: 282: 278: 274: 267: 266: 264: 262: 258: 253: 249: 248: 231: 226: 222: 217: 214: 213: 212: 206: 202: 198: 197: 193: 189: 184: 183: 182: 181: 179: 178: 161: 160: 159: 158: 157: 156: 154: 153: 136: 135: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 128: 122: 120: 115: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5234: 5227: 5192: 5180: 5174: 5166: 5158: 5149: 5114:Rick Norwood 5078:Machine Elf 5053:Machine Elf 5027:Machine Elf 5000: 4979: 4975: 4968:and to refs 4947: 4915: 4879:CRGreathouse 4869:Machine Elf 4861: 4860: 4856: 4842:Rick Norwood 4839: 4790: 4789: 4785: 4784: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4762: 4739: 4711:Machine Elf 4655:Machine Elf 4632: 4592: 4486: 4430:CRGreathouse 4402: 4397: 4393: 4391: 4375: 4371: 4369: 4353: 4349: 4328: 4324: 4321:Robinson, D. 4311: 4307: 4299:Google books 4294: 4287: 4269: 4266:perdurantism 4246:perdurantism 4242:perdurantism 4237: 4226: 4223:Lewis (1976) 4214: 4212: 4183:perdurantism 4176: 4165: 4155: 4151: 4150: 4113:Machine Elf 4107: 4098: 4077: 4071: 4069: 4029: 4028: 4018: 4002: 3969:Machine Elf 3955: 3951: 3944: 3940: 3935: 3929:mere warning 3928: 3927:receiving a 3923: 3922: 3918: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3865:Machine Elf 3831: 3804: 3782:Machine Elf 3776: 3772:130.216.1.16 3715: 3697: 3679: 3661: 3647: 3627: 3549: 3515: 3457: 3443: 3414: 3392: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3360: 3343: 3294: 3275: 3268: 3225: 3208: 3199:Aristophanes 3198: 3186: 3167: 3152: 3138: 3116: 3098: 3080: 3037:CRGreathouse 3015: 3006: 2986: 2968: 2965:article now. 2952: 2921: 2907: 2884: 2883: 2863: 2833: 2794: 2758: 2704:Logical form 2700:Logical Form 2687: 2674:Logical form 2669: 2652:Logical Form 2645: 2630: 2614: 2587:Machine Elf 2527:Machine Elf 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2409:argumenttalk 2399:Machine Elf 2375: 2350: 2346: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2325: 2317: 2308: 2304: 2297: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2239: 2234: 2231: 2222: 2220: 2213: 2161: 2111: 2094: 2071: 2050: 2016:Machine Elf 2011:Self-evident 1986: 1982: 1960: 1955:Good Article 1954: 1952: 1914:Check it out 1896: 1862: 1852: 1770: 1766: 1759: 1753: 1749: 1662: 1658: 1652: 1598:65.93.12.101 1585: 1562:development. 1538: 1530: 1514:65.93.12.101 1510:Talk:Instant 1503: 1474: 1450: 1355: 1345: 1337:Machine Elf 1312: 1308: 1298: 1295: 1288: 1254: 1236: 1189: 1161: 1132: 1106: 1073: 1065: 1027:|0123.4567}} 1004:cite journal 985: 967: 910: 907: 904: 901: 897: 892: 891:The section 890: 884: 883:The section 882: 877: 876:The section 875: 870: 869:The section 868: 862: 860: 857: 854: 851: 828: 802: 778: 756: 732: 722: 699:CRGreathouse 677: 674: 655: 644: 636: 625:10. MOFA at 611: 595: 581: 577: 560: 558:7. Compare 552: 503: 433: 408: 403: 398: 368: 292: 276: 210: 174: 149: 123: 116: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4684:the problem 4638:determinism 4487:interpreted 4291:Rorty, A.O. 4262:endurantism 4248:only), not 4097:I hope you 4058:Biowikifarm 4052:. I'm sure 3964:comfy chair 3884:unjustified 3648:Four times: 3591:as I said, 3396:Lisnabreeny 3083:Metaphysics 3077:Metaphysics 3033:Omega Point 2993:Omega point 2963:Nothingness 2955:nothingness 2947:nothingness 2592:Lisnabreeny 2510:Lisnabreeny 2273:Thomas Kuhn 2190:John Carter 2148:John Carter 2133:John Carter 2099:John Carter 2079:John Carter 1775:Land Effect 1735:Land Effect 1542:John Carter 1485:Jezhotwells 1387:). Thanks, 1358:Aha! Effect 1351:Aha! Effect 670:Paul Graham 594:Article in 493:irredentist 491:of Chinese 480:Response 3 475:Response 2 470:Response 1 399:World Atlas 275:Article in 36:This is an 4819:presentism 4815:eternalism 4703:presentism 4699:eternalism 4688:definition 4613:eternalism 4605:presentism 4398:everything 4258:presentism 4254:eternalism 4250:eternalism 4179:eternalism 4070:which I'm 4054:Species-ID 4037:can't you? 3141:Dougweller 3061:Dougweller 2670:Correction 2277:John Dewey 1948:Secularism 1800:WP:Silence 1762:Notability 1321:Discussion 1204:, so I'll 1030:(or worse 656:The term " 633:11. See 539:4. MOFA, 489:refutation 201:refutation 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 5178:Compare 5021:this edit 4642:free will 4343:reply to 4284:Lewis, D. 4213:The term 4108:elsewhere 3842:you admit 2894:Skomorokh 2542:Walkinxyz 2524:tactics.— 2476:Ownership 2436:Walkinxyz 2417:Walkinxyz 2353:Walkinxyz 2341:ownership 2309:Critiques 2055:Greg Bard 1568:Walkinxyz 1313:Wolfowitz 1268:Walkinxyz 1210:WP:FRINGE 1128:Karl Marx 989:(such as 570:8. MOFA, 431:; and at 357:Islands. 125:Japanese 5219:MOFA at 4984:Philogos 4933:Philogos 4925:Philogos 4304:Muis, R. 4229:at all! 4219:Robinson 4207:article: 4191:Philogos 4035:WP:CIVIL 4024:“vandal” 3956:“report” 3876:accounts 3805:accounts 3735:Oct 2009 3634:Philogos 3601:Philogos 3593:Philogos 3579:Philogos 3538:Philogos 3524:Philogos 3487:Philogos 3460:Philogos 3446:Philogos 3377:Philogos 3313:Philogos 3191:over at 3119:Philogos 3105:Philogos 3087:Philogos 2844:Artoasis 2840:see here 2813:Philogos 2771:Philogos 2744:WP:MERGE 2730:Philogos 2716:Philogos 2656:Philogos 2451:Philogos 2421:Philogos 2387:edit war 2351:Thanks, 2328:deleting 2246:argument 2216:argument 1961:Thanks, 1926:checking 1869:nonsense 1788:Logician 1777:”, and. 1470:Al-Kindi 1457:·Maunus· 1408:Looie496 1255:actually 1214:WP:UNDUE 1202:verified 1198:argument 1176:Philogos 1085:contribs 1077:Headbomb 1014:cite web 994:citation 952:science. 653:project. 441:between 393:Article 5088:Stho002 5063:Stho002 5038:Stho002 5006:Stho002 4953:Stho002 4917:Stho002 4899:Stho002 4823:Stho002 4795:Stho002 4752:Stho002 4721:Stho002 4666:Stho002 4577:Stho002 4549:Stho002 4491:Stho002 4451:Stho002 4407:Stho002 4380:Stho002 4358:Stho002 4354:exactly 4124:Stho002 4082:WP:LEAD 4068:issues— 4019:Perhaps 3980:Stho002 3888:Stho002 3817:Stho002 3809:Stho002 3797:Stho002 3750:to the 3730:WP:SOCK 3605:Stho002 3567:Stho002 3554:Stho002 3542:Stho002 3502:Stho002 3468:Stho002 3327:Stho002 3296:Stho002 3276:opinion 3248:Stho002 3016:Cheers 2943:nothing 2576:blocked 2566:Please 2376:briefly 1922:lacking 1918:nothing 1910:nothing 1906:Reality 1891:Reality 1792:nothing 1786:", ask 1657:"There 1506:Instant 1499:Instant 1089:physics 608:尖閣諸島 589:尖閣諸島 419:尖閣諸島 379:尖閣諸島 360:Letter 289:尖閣諸島 270:尖閣諸島 219:Table: 39:archive 5231:See 5196:MOFA, 5141:MOFA, 4999:I was 4866:all”?— 4747:WP:SYN 4742:WP:SYN 4680:WP:SYN 4593:plural 4516:WP:NPV 4508:WP:NPV 4293:(ed.) 4277:(2005) 4234:(2005) 4090:as an 4078:entire 4066:WP:COI 3943:(like 3807:) ... 3536:IMHO, 3411:verify 3351:WP:YOU 3209:(talk) 2915:, and 2396:, thx— 1916:. The 1771:in 3-D 1769:image 1767:single 1737:or on 1426:Cunard 1389:Cunard 1366:Cunard 1309:Kiefer 1218:reason 1206:WP:AGF 1190:delete 684:Tenmei 610:..... 443:Taiwan 437:, see 291:..... 205:thesis 4780:: --> 4776:: --> 4772:: --> 4692:WP:OR 4686:, by 4563:JonPF 4528:JonPF 4473:JonPF 4370:: --> 4350:: --> 4345:Vesal 4240:with 4092:WP:RS 4062:TNZOR 4046:TNZOR 3924:after 3708:03:26 3690:04:37 3672:04:42 3654:05:09 3597:Vesal 3577:. — 3464:Vesal 3381:Vesal 2041:cont. 1930:empty 1902:forms 1899:empty 1893:check 1756:like? 1750:looks 1147:talk 1135:WP:GA 1093:books 1054:|url= 1047:JSTOR 1032:|url= 1025:arxiv 933:into 578:kanji 534:Notes 447:Japan 410:kanji 370:kanji 349:Type 341:Type 333:Type 16:< 5118:talk 5092:talk 5067:talk 5042:talk 5036:... 5010:talk 4988:talk 4957:talk 4948:lots 4937:talk 4929:talk 4921:talk 4903:talk 4846:talk 4827:talk 4799:talk 4793:... 4756:talk 4750:... 4725:talk 4670:talk 4640:and 4581:talk 4567:talk 4553:talk 4532:talk 4523:WP:V 4504:WP:V 4495:talk 4477:talk 4469:WP:V 4465:WP:V 4455:talk 4422:WP:V 4411:talk 4394:only 4384:talk 4362:talk 4275:Muis 4264:vs. 4256:vs. 4232:Muis 4195:talk 4181:and 4128:talk 4099:have 3984:talk 3892:talk 3821:talk 3813:talk 3801:talk 3638:talk 3609:talk 3583:talk 3558:talk 3546:talk 3528:talk 3506:talk 3491:talk 3472:talk 3450:talk 3400:talk 3385:talk 3331:talk 3317:talk 3300:talk 3252:talk 3236:talk 3174:talk 3160:talk 3145:talk 3123:talk 3109:talk 3091:talk 3065:talk 3022:talk 3018:Dmcq 2995:and 2974:talk 2970:PPdd 2932:talk 2928:PPdd 2917:here 2913:here 2909:Here 2871:talk 2848:talk 2817:talk 2795:talk 2775:talk 2759:talk 2734:talk 2720:talk 2702:and 2688:talk 2660:talk 2631:talk 2611:lede 2596:talk 2546:talk 2514:talk 2471:ARE. 2455:talk 2440:talk 2425:talk 2357:talk 2321:here 2235:also 2194:talk 2170:talk 2152:talk 2137:talk 2118:talk 2103:talk 2083:talk 2059:talk 2034:? - 2000:talk 1996:PPdd 1967:talk 1938:talk 1934:PPdd 1881:talk 1877:PPdd 1837:talk 1833:PPdd 1823:talk 1808:talk 1804:PPdd 1754:feel 1671:talk 1667:PPdd 1602:talk 1572:talk 1546:talk 1518:talk 1489:talk 1453:here 1430:talk 1412:talk 1393:talk 1370:talk 1272:talk 1237:keep 1226:talk 1180:talk 1117:talk 1109:here 1081:talk 1052:and 1043:|id= 1021:|id= 968:talk 917:talk 839:talk 835:PPdd 813:talk 809:PPdd 788:talk 764:talk 749:talk 745:PPdd 688:talk 451:Map 445:and 223:and 5001:not 4990:) 4939:) 4862:did 4633:can 4630:we 4625:We 4621:We 4617:we 4609:we 4403:not 4333:doi 4316:PDF 4197:) 4072:not 3952:but 3945:not 3880:not 3762:IO2 3752:IO2 3640:) 3585:) 3530:) 3493:) 3452:) 3319:) 3291:... 3125:) 3111:) 3093:) 2961:at 2919:. 2819:) 2777:) 2736:) 2722:) 2714:.— 2662:) 2457:) 2427:) 2244:to 2095:one 2036:2/0 1928:an 1861:'s 1447:RFC 1385:MfD 1182:) 1111:.-- 945:it. 733:one 727:in 668:by 580:-- 311:[[ 265:[[ 119:QED 5204:^ 5132:^ 5120:) 5094:) 5069:) 5044:) 5012:) 4982:— 4959:) 4905:) 4886:| 4848:) 4829:) 4801:) 4758:) 4727:) 4672:) 4615:, 4607:, 4583:) 4569:) 4555:) 4534:) 4497:) 4479:) 4457:) 4437:| 4428:. 4413:) 4386:) 4378:. 4364:) 4329:63 4327:, 4310:, 4288:in 4279:. 4260:, 4170:— 4130:) 3986:) 3966:.— 3894:) 3823:) 3775:, 3632:— 3611:) 3560:) 3508:) 3485:— 3474:) 3444:— 3402:) 3387:) 3357:: 3333:) 3302:) 3254:) 3238:) 3203:68 3176:) 3162:) 3147:) 3067:) 3044:| 3024:) 2991:, 2976:) 2934:) 2911:, 2873:) 2865:-- 2850:) 2766:. 2710:, 2638:. 2619:. 2598:) 2548:) 2516:) 2449:— 2442:) 2359:) 2323:. 2291:, 2287:, 2283:, 2279:, 2275:, 2196:) 2172:) 2154:) 2139:) 2120:) 2105:) 2085:) 2061:) 2013:? 2002:) 1985:. 1969:) 1940:) 1883:) 1839:) 1825:) 1810:) 1802:? 1673:) 1663:is 1659:is 1604:) 1596:. 1574:) 1548:) 1520:) 1512:. 1491:) 1483:. 1432:) 1414:) 1406:. 1395:) 1372:) 1323:) 1274:) 1228:) 1174:— 1138:-- 1119:) 1091:/ 1087:/ 1083:/ 1063:. 1059:→ 1045:{{ 1023:{{ 1017:}} 1011:{{ 1009:, 1007:}} 1001:{{ 999:, 997:}} 991:{{ 919:) 841:) 815:) 790:) 782:-- 766:) 751:) 743:? 706:| 690:) 423:, 383:, 304:]] 94:→ 64:← 5116:( 5090:( 5065:( 5040:( 5008:( 4986:( 4955:( 4935:( 4927:( 4919:( 4901:( 4890:) 4888:c 4884:t 4882:( 4844:( 4825:( 4797:( 4754:( 4723:( 4668:( 4644:. 4579:( 4565:( 4551:( 4530:( 4493:( 4475:( 4453:( 4441:) 4439:c 4435:t 4433:( 4409:( 4382:( 4360:( 4335:: 4312:5 4193:( 4126:( 3982:( 3890:( 3853:. 3819:( 3811:( 3799:( 3636:( 3607:( 3581:( 3556:( 3544:( 3526:( 3504:( 3489:( 3470:( 3448:( 3426:. 3398:( 3383:( 3329:( 3315:( 3298:( 3250:( 3234:( 3172:( 3158:( 3143:( 3121:( 3107:( 3089:( 3063:( 3048:) 3046:c 3042:t 3040:( 3020:( 2972:( 2930:( 2869:( 2846:( 2815:( 2802:. 2790:— 2773:( 2754:— 2732:( 2718:( 2695:. 2683:— 2658:( 2626:— 2594:( 2584:— 2544:( 2512:( 2467:? 2453:( 2438:( 2423:( 2355:( 2192:( 2168:( 2150:( 2135:( 2116:( 2101:( 2081:( 2057:( 2043:) 2039:( 1998:( 1965:( 1936:( 1879:( 1835:( 1821:( 1806:( 1728:. 1725:. 1722:. 1719:. 1716:. 1713:. 1710:. 1707:. 1704:. 1701:. 1698:. 1695:. 1692:. 1689:. 1686:. 1683:. 1680:. 1669:( 1600:( 1570:( 1544:( 1516:( 1487:( 1461:· 1459:ƛ 1428:( 1410:( 1391:( 1368:( 1319:( 1311:. 1270:( 1261:. 1224:( 1178:( 1144:| 1115:( 1095:} 1079:{ 975:. 963:— 915:( 837:( 811:( 786:( 762:( 747:( 710:) 708:c 704:t 702:( 686:( 672:. 616:↑ 604:↓ 434:B 429:) 415:( 404:A 389:) 375:( 297:↑ 285:↓ 121:. 114:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 14 - Knowledge

Index