This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This template was considered for
deletion on 2020 September 4. The result of the discussion was "redirect".
comment
Is there an order to these subject? it seems to have some, and then it gets all screwed up. can someone please elaborate on the order methology of these subtopics? --
Procrastinating@talk2me20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Perhaps we can be
certain of the
randomness of the list. Also, I included epsitimology. does anyone disagree to my change? How about doubt and uncertainty? or would that be opposite of what should be on the certainty list? --
Tsinoyboi06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I totally disagree. The philisophical teachinhg of the limitaion of knowledge is not a lvevl of our title. it is the faculty of the mind that explores it, not a property of logic and knowledge. Adding this wowuld constitue a like --
Procrastinating@talk2me08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)you made a category mistake. Using epiusimological "knowhow" is described under Justified true belief. So said I holding this to be an absolute trancedental Goldy truth..:)reply
Actually, i just added doubt since uncertainty was already on it. Isn't that biased to exclude epistemology? How can u verify "trancedental Godly truth"? Should agnosticism even be on here? Agnosticism is a philosophical position about knowing and what can or can't be known also. How do u know that's true about certainty? Does it comply with
WP:VWp:OR and
WP:INDY? --
Tsinoyboi15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I still don't get how
Determinism fits into this list but
Skepticism doesn't. The two are like different sides of the same coin. And like somebody said doubt is "essence of negating certainty" which is almost the same thing as Uncertainty, which is on the list.--
King Mir19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, the opposite of Skepticism would be belief or something, and the opposite of determinism would be probabilistic indeterminism or perhaps just indeterminism.
173.79.201.126 (
talk)
00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Please, consider adding
Anekantavada, a concept in Jain philosophy which directly addresses the knowability of truths and their subtle, manifold nature, which transcends articulation. The analogy of "the blind men and the elephant" is a typical example, wherein various blind men "know" an particular part of an elephant, by touch, and each declares the animal to be very different from how the others describe it. The idea being that they are all partially correct, but their interpretation is clouded by assumptions about the whole. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:48:C602:62E0:DC4B:9528:EA1A:F10F (
talk)
10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Legends, trying to be as quintessential as possible
Nihilism -Everything is possibly not true, does not even exist, I dont care.
Agnosticism -Some thing may be other than they seem, it is impossible to know, so irrelevant for discussion.
Uncertainty -Some thing are true, I cant be "sure" which ones.
Probability -Some thing are true, I have a function to declare relative truth by relatively negating others.
Estimation -Some things are true, I can approximate the way these things look like, without "knowing" them directly.
Belief -I have no proof, yet I tend to think some are truth.
Ah I didn't realize the link to justified true belief was actually the epistimology page. Thanks for the explanation of each term. I kind of see a relationship between these; but is there a way to define what it needs to be? I wouldn't say levels of certainty. The
certainty page sure doesn't explain it. I guess they all seem like conclusions. They all involve concluding something as truth or as end of discussion. There's probably more to it. So are these arranged in a specific order or should they be alphabetical? --
Tsinoyboi16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Could there be a Certainty series specifically for this box?
Sounds good. I'll change it now. Still open to discussion and further revisions, though. The only question now is how are they related and what makes this a series? Hmm needs an outside source. --
Tsinoyboi16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I guess that sounds better. Supposedly it looked to me like it was was supposed to be several conclusions of of world views. However, that's probably a better title. I'm not at disagreement to make that change. --
Tsinoyboi16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)reply
TFD
I spoke to my Philosophy prof about the "certainty series" and he had never heard of it. Furthermore, browsing the internet, i've found absolutely no justification for a certainty series. If this is original research, it has no place in wikipedia. Otherwise, there need to be citations for where this information was found.
Archtemplar08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I can find a prof' to not know things about most articles in here. If it's not a main stream lingo, it is still useful in categorizing articles in wikipedia, as "Philosophy navigational boxes" not a philosophical paradigm. Most of the categories here have no professor to assign authority to them, they are a tool, not a profession of academic consensus. --
Procrastinating@talk2me11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I am distrustful of this grouping of things. I just looked at it and literally laughed out loud. Philosophical epistemology (viz Skepticism, Nihilism) has little to do with the mathematics of dealing with uncertainty. I understand that the explanation of some interpretations of exactly what uncertainty/probability mean could be interpreted as being "philosophical," but I certainly do not think a discussion of Skepticism concerning knowledge or the nature of Justified True Belief, for example, should be so explicitly categorized the same as, say, probability. I dunno. Just my two cents. --
ILikeThings22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
This box does not add value to any of the pages it appears on, and the descriptions for the series entries seem very ad hoc. I've wanted to see it deleted since I first laid eyes on it months ago.
There is no external reasoning that justifies the existence of this box. It does not enhance a person's categorical understanding of the involved topics. The grouping is not based on an established discipline of philosophy, and contains no citations to establish itself as such. I don't know how but can't someone nominate this for deletion?
72.34.65.11418:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If you find this box unfitting to a certain article, feel free to suggest it's removal from that specific article, as for the ordering of things, there is an open invitation for discussion by two individuals here, an invitation that has not been challenged by anyone in 8 months. (beside direct spamming)--
Procrastinating@talk2me14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I am uncertain as to why
Probability is included on this list. Everything else seems to be a philosophical topic, so the one mathematical topic seems like the odd one out. It doesn't seem very useful on the probability page.
Quantumelfmage (
talk)
15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Dear me...a black template :) Haven't seen such before. I suggest that it be changed into the only other neutral colour - white - before its creator and collaborators can agree on another. This is simply not functional, and people with normal eyesight cannot see anything on it either. And lastly, I don't know why uncertainty has to be associated with blackness/darkness in academic reference literature (i.e. Wikipedia). I thought that is a concept encountered in popular culture, folklore and the like. --
B. Jankuloski (
talk)
06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
@
Approaching: I definitely agree. Since this post is a few years old at this point, I'm starting a new section below in hopes of getting some consensus in favor of deletion. --
Drevolt (
talk)
21:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Going off of concerns raised by
Approaching in a post from three years ago, I'd like to voice my agreement that this template could be deleted without doing any real harm. It's a fairly loose grouping that doesn't reflect any Wikipedia-independent study of the subject, and seems to have just clung on over the years without being particularly useful. I do think that introducing a comparable sidebar that would include maybe half of these pages would be a good idea. I'd personally be inclined to introduce a sidebar on topics in
Epistemology, since that's a much more natural way to group some of these pages, but I'm open to other suggestions as well. Any thoughts? --
Drevolt (
talk)
21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Based on the feedback so far, I've created
Template:Epistemology sidebar and started working on it, replacing the certainty sidebar on various pages where the epistemology sidebar is more appropriate. Since I get the feeling that there's consensus for deletion, I'm going to move ahead with it. Further input from anyone who thinks that the template is worth preserving is still welcome, of course. --
Drevolt (
talk)
00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply