See also: Category:Philosophy articles needing attention See also: Category:Philosophy stubs [edit] Glossaries and lists which need to be completed [edit] To be manually checked, deleted or moved to article's talk page: Nazi Mysticism fictional nonsense about UFOs and Nazi bases on the moon. Hgilbert 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Platonic epistemology stub-like article, nonsensical grammar. reetep 20:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Queer Theory has been re-opened for dispute. A fresh pair of eyes and opinions might help to convince others that some aspects of this article need more than work -- some need to be re-structured so they aren't incredibly offensive as is.--Lantog 12:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Primitivism is a grotesque display of quackery. User:Sam Spade 14:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Marxist feminism - very poorly written, unwikified article that needs a proper going over. Ninebelow 11:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Philosophical skepticism - Currently a lecture, I have made a start but more reorganisation and specialist knowledge needed. Sextus 13:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Core ontology - poorly explained. --[[User:Eequor|η
 υωρ]] 20:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Essentialism - Needs someone who knows more about Essentialism than I do to pull the page together. Before I made it a disambiguation page, it was a mixture of the first two topics. jaredwf 11:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- I have nominated this article for the Article improvement drive as it still is unbalanced and stubbish. -- Hippalus 12:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Forms of state - Oof! I don't know anything about this topic, but I know this needs some reorg. and rewording. --Spikey 02:49, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Friedrich Nietzsche - final section "Misc" ends in what appears to be a tangential essay with no clear connection to Nietsche's ideas --llywrch- Immortality - Bias and poor writing in Concepts. 119 05:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Larry's Text is a set of pages input by Larry Sanger in the early days of Wikipedia. It is 350+(!) pages of introduction to philosophy lectures he gave at Ohio State University. Rendering it all encyclopedic has been a daunting task, and many of these articles still need a lot of work.
- Metaphysical subjectivism - Basically, the first section of the article seems glib and non-encyclopedic, and I would like the information to be backed up by some external sources (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/objective.html). -Seth Mahoney 22:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
physicalism: Larry's Text has been removed, but now this article needs to be edited from the ground up. This is a pretty critical position in philosophy of mind, so come help out!Right opinion - could be clearer, more formatted, more explanatory; about Plato's philosophy. from cleanup [[User:Cohesion|cohesion | ☎]] 01:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)Socratic method - needs more organization and references, currently sounds more like one person's interpretation of it, than an encyclopedia article. --zandperl 15:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)sophistry - Moved two POV paragraphs from the article to the talk page. How can we rework these paragraphs to NPOV? Kwertii 02:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)- subject-object problem -- needs work; contains an extremely far-fetched analogy to quantum mechanics; too verbose. +sj+ 10:41, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
- Time: Just generally an absolute mess. I read the article and I son't think it told me one thing about time. Fishal 01:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The Enlightenment. Too many cooks spoil the broth it seems, at least when it comes to describing, in general terms, the main characteristics of this revolutionary era. An introduction to enlightened 18th century thought is needed here, with lots of cross references leading off to politics, literature, etc. etc. Also, the split into The Enlightenment and Enlightenment (concept) (plus a disambiguation page Enlightenment) might be reconsidered. <KF> 00:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Voltaire - needs re-organizing, updating, editing for style (most of the article is 1911EB); and some judicious trimming probably wouldn't hurt. --Paul A 06:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Will (philosophy) - says copyediting in progress, but that way is May last year. andy 23:08, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Abductive Reasoning. Some material, copied and pasted from somewhere else, not very well organised and with incomplete references. I tried to improve it a bit, but more work is needed. 13:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ethical non-naturalism has been gutted. [1] ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hexis is unclear, requires more context, and possibly fails to present all sides. Hydriotaphia 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Critique_of_Pure_Reason Importance: High; Class: B (!?) Original research, etc. Needs a rewrite.Ostracon (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nicomachean Ethics is having trouble getting enough attention from interested editors, so that there are section headings with nothing worth saying underneath, and this has been for a long time. I am working on it recently but it is a big job. I don't know if it would help, but the low importance rating this project gives it seems pretty wrong to me. This is surely a core work in the history of all philosophy? I guess it is a work some people consider difficult, but there must be some people out there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion is very anaemic article that doesn't seem to get any attention from you lot! :-) Jaymax (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unbelieving. A new article with some problems. I have commented on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Logic (transclusion) Eg. The lead paragraph was the inspiring:
Deductive reasoning, according to many dictionaries,[1] is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information. --Philogo (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)--Philogo (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) - Counterfactuals Is anyone willing to make extensive revisions and additions to this page with me? Pjwerner (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've nominated Negative proof for deletion and would like some input from others. I have never seen the term Negative proof used to mean "Conclude X because there is no proof of ~X". That's a straightforward Argument from ignorance fallacy, far as I can figger, but please let me know if I'm mistaken and this article should be kept. Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I've never heard of it. Article has two refs, as one says "Negative Proof is a special case of the fallacy of Denying The Antecedent if we accept the additional premise that observing a phenomenon implies that it exists. With this additional premise, the above argument can be rewritten:...". --Philogo 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't see that Safalra's website counts as a reliable source. There is, nonetheless, one way in which Safalra appears to distinguish negative proof from Argument from ignorance: According to Safalra, the former is about the existence of some phenomenon while the latter is about the truth of some statement. With this definition, it is obvious that every instance of the so-called negative proof fallacy is an argument from ignorance, but not the other way around. In any case, this proposed difference is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. Phiwum (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Burden of proof (logical fallacy) I think this fallacy is supposed to be: setting the burden of proof unreasonably high. Again, maybe some critical thinking texts have referred to this as an informal fallacy, but I haven't seen it. In any case, the article as written is a bit confusing, with more emphasis on citing examples than with citing discussions of the fallacy itself. Can we get some appropriate sources for this article? Phiwum (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
|
.gif){kind=small}
