Jump to content

Talk:Concept

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahshealy, MollyMYZ. Peer reviewers: BlandK, Ssmith95, Jag1498, JBalcita, Larsonrc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why were current discussions archived?

[edit]

Some of the talk was only a week old. It should not have been archived Bhny (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but quite a bit of the discussion was quite old. The content is still available at the link above. Unlike for very active talk pages, there is no automated script that just "takes a little off the top."" Greg Bard (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the link you refer to? [[User:Skylarkmichelle|Skylarkmichelle}} (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skylarkmichelle: There should be a box near the top right of the page that says "Archives". In that box, there's a clickable link to the talk page archives. It looks like there is only one archive for this page, at Talk:Concept/Archive 1. Airplaneman ✈ 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

[edit]

Note: Just fyi, the above was a merge proposal and the consensus was not to merge. Please click on the discussion link for more info. Painius  03:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting lede per the archived threads

[edit]

The part after my current summary has at least this problem: the word "metaphysics" does not occur in the given source. Many readers of this text may be unaware of how completely discredited that term is in both modern continental and analytic philosophy. Its appearance here would seem to be an egregious manifestation of the general wiki problem and a redact is in order, but I didn't want to just wipe it. Excising or making that term situated, putting in somekina apposition is certainly called for. Lycurgus (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Lycurgus: After a scan of the metaphysics article and the given source, there appears to be quite a controversy still going that would both validate your argument and negate your solution. Wikipedia must remain neutral in such cases, so the the statement, "In metaphysics, and especially ontology, a concept is a..." should stay as it is until the philosophical arguments gain stability on the status of metaphysics. Ontology is still listed as a part of metaphysics, and metaphysics is mentioned in section 3.2 of the source by Hume (where he thoroughly slashes and burns the metaphysics branch). Hume's opinion, while influential, is still just one of many. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Paine Ellsworth: ty, by 'modern' I did mean within the last century. Lycurgus (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly no expert, but it seems there is still some argument about whether or not metaphysics should be discredited. Or is the article on metaphysics misleading in this respect? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PE, the plain fact is that outside of general culture, for the last hundred or so years, metaphysics is utterly discredited, there's virtually no 'serious' discipline where it's taken seriously other than as a historical phenomenon and for what it says about systems of thought of the past. Of course I'm excluding religion and the like where it still has some purchase. Wiki is definitely 'general culture', and articles generally conform to what would be expected to be able to have content in an article on say polypeptides where the authority of fact is fairly uncontroversial. Being as this not such an article, the request is simply that popular notions of metaphysics be put in the proper frame as such.Lycurgus (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense – one pauses, though, when one reads in the ontology article, Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions.... "Major branch of philosophy" to me implies that the historical is just as important to philosophy as the contemporary, at least to some ratio of philosophers. Should we redact "ontology", as well? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology is not metaphysics, the opposite inasmuch as the former is by now a fairly mainstay element in intelligent systems, sem web, etc. It's a discredited misthink of the past versus a thriving area of applied practical philosophy, computer science, usw. Also as a basis of an AI element or other similar practical thing a metaphysics would have a different character, but that's abtruse, outside of scope of lede at least. Ontology OTOH is dead on topic re concepts. Lycurgus (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Now, if there are reliable sources to support that ontology is not "part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics", as well as those to support that metaphysics is no longer a "major branch" of philosophy, then there are three articles, metaphysics, ontology and this one that need revisions. I'm surprised this wasn't caught and improved long ago! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I'm not, par for this course. Lycurgus (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, and to be honest, I'm not all that surprised either, but for a different reason. You see, I consider metaphysics to be a major historic branch of philosophy in much the same way as astrology is a major historic branch of astronomy, but then, I'm more historian than scientist. I do understand how important it is that the sciences separate themselves from the pseudosciences of the past. Yet, if we just "wipe out" (redact) past errors, then there is a better chance for past mistakes to be repeated. In my opinion, "metaphysics" should remain in the lead as an integral part of this article so readers may enjoy a neutral history of the philosophical evolution of "concept". Joys! – Paine  20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cogent analogue, astrology is not a branch of astronomy, they have at most a nominal relatedness. Lycurgus (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True enough! Astrology is actually the trunk of the astronomy tree. And metaphysics? Such "nominal" modern relationships still continue to be important in the histories of science and philosophy. – Paine  23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have conflated the ancient origins of astronomy with astrology and are making a similar error in assigning the role you are to metaphysics. Astrology as such is culture dependent, an attachment of meaning to celestial phenomenon that is not generally observed in ancient astronomy. Similar thing with metaphysics but the situation is a little more complicated because Astronomy is a hard science and culture independent but Philosophy is not. Lycurgus (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is history that has conflated the two disciplines, astronomy and astrology. The science of astronomy is as a child when compared with the elderly father, astrology. Some of the greatest astronomers, such as Brahe and Kepler, gave astrology readings to friends and acquaintences. And it isn't just astrology – science has also had to fight off religion, as well. Galileo, who by the way loathed astrology and his contemporary Kepler, succumbed to threats of excommunication made by the Catholic church and renounced his scientific discoveries of sunspots on the Sun, the phases of Venus, the giant moons of Jupiter, etc. And now, in modern times, science has won out over much of its shady past. You're right about philosophy, though, because it is definitely more complex due to the fact that it is not science and is loathed by many scientists. Philosophy is also more complex because it is not restricted by the scientific method of inquiry. In any case, what cannot be denied is that metaphysics is an integral part of the history of philosophy, and that is precisely what this project is all about – to accurately record and maintain a history of notable entries, past, present and future. Readers must be allowed to be privy to all of it. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see, let others review it, ty. Lycurgus (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

[edit]

To editor Airplaneman: Back in May of this year you tagged this article with {{confusing}} and {{essay-like}}. Since there has been no discussion here, and since I can find no inline tags, I have removed those maintenance tags, at least temporarily, with no prejudice for someone to put them back. Perhaps you can be more specific as to what you find to be confusing and non-NPOV? Maybe then we can find some expert(s), perhaps at one or both of the Wikiprojects at the top of this page. Painius  03:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over the lede

[edit]

I noticed that the lede states 'there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:' but then only goes on to list two. Unfortunately I know nowhere near enough about the subject to amend this. --130.88.99.228 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your confusion, since the lead clearly lists three ways:
 Stick to sources! Paine  00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what happened: With this edit, IP 94.192.102.251 removed the third way, which was...
  • Concepts as abstract objects, where objects are the constituents of propositions that mediate between thought, language, and referents
...and with this edit by editor Marinluisf, it was replaced with the following...
  • Concepts as Fregean senses (see sense and reference), where concepts are abstract objects, as opposed to mental objects and mental states
...So we're back to three again, and I'll evaluate the edits.  Stick to sources! Paine  01:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and  Done 08:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


"higher-level thinking" = "Hierarchy (thinking)" = "Deep learning#Theories of the human brain" ??

[edit]

The link in top (lede) image ends up at Deep Learning. Is this correct (makes sense) ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious1i (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concept. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concept. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

preposition used with the word, also add the same info to all Wikipedia pages, suitable prepositions

[edit]

"Lakeoff" in the Prototype theory section

[edit]

In the section titled Prototype theory, there's a reference to someone called "Lakeoff". I suspect that that might just be a typo, intended to refer to the linguist George Lakoff. But there may well be someone called "Lakeoff" that I haven't heard of. In the former case, I'd like to correct it; in the latter case, it would be nice to know the full name and have a link to something that refers to him/her directly. Any advice on how to proceed? Ricklaman (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts as abilities missing in ontology

[edit]

The section on concepts as abilities is missing in the ontology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damitr (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas

[edit]

Is there such thing as "concrete" and "abstract" ideas? Should this wording be re-evaluated as the core definition. 68.38.218.65 (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is, e.g, when we mentally calculate a discount; when we want to give the definition of something or when we try to solve a crossword puzzle, it can be a example abstract idea.
Basically abstract ideas exist in such way particular in human thinking, but with universal representation capacity, that is, a single concept that applies universally to individuals—position that is defended by conceptualists.
As for concrete ideas, it refers to a type of ideal that can become practical and real, and usually it is used for resolve some daily problems, once it is putted in practice.
We can argue that both of those exist, in a conceptualist context, yes, but outside of that, I find it very difficult to continue being so. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referential Source:
Shortcuts
This essay proposes an alternative way of thinking about article concepts, and does not document current practice

Conceptualization or abstraction, in the context of editing and writing Wikipedia articles, is a modality of editorial thought, in which articles are regarded more for their ability to represent concepts rather than specific objects, such that articles can be explanatory in a general and abstract way, rather than be overly concerned with particular ideas and localized terms. Concept articles are written with abstractions first in mind, while the particular terminologies come second.

Conceptualism is in contrast with the specialistic nomenclature (cf. taxonomy) of specialization, in which articles tend to represent distinct localized concepts, and little attention is paid to how these concepts relate to one another. For example, ATW, the authors of veganism fail to mention vegetarianism in their lede - a necessary distinction to make in the lede of any article where the concepts are too similar to assume no ambiguity exists, or where the failure to make the distinction is itself made for only polemic reasons. (See also Wikipedia:Concept cloud).

The basic goals of this modality, as applied to Wikipedia, are:

  1. All distinct concepts should be represented as distinct articles.
  2. Within a topic, the higher concept article should be the most developed.
  3. If there is a valid conceptual abstraction of a concept or topic..
    1. ..for which there is no article: Create one.
    2. ..for which there are many disparate articles: Create one, list all of the relevant ones (Ex: divine presence), and link to the higher concept from each.
    3. ..for which there is no canonical term: Create one, using multiple common terms: (ex: "sugar water" "Iraq disarmament crisis")
  4. Create topic boxes liberally, and use them as an editorial tool to organize related topics, and to develop the articles within (cf. template:needs box and template:standard).
  5. Focus on the leads of the higher concept articles until they are as good as you can make them. The details follow.

Blue sky mining

[edit]
Shortcut

Another concept that the conceptualization modality counters is the 'blue sky mining fallacy' or the 'creator fallacy' —the notion that certain naturally-occurring concepts and ideas ("blue sky") are "originated" from or "invented" and even owned ("mine") by particular individuals. Simply put, just because someone was first to write a book, paper, or thesis on a general concept, it should not be said that the concept itself originates with them, and it can not ever be said that the concept belongs to them.

Both Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements, along with the tendency to write articles in taxonomical rather than conceptual ways, play into this fallacy. The result is that particular individuals are not only credited as forumlators or expounders upon a basic idea, but the article is written as if no one had ever even thought of the subject before, let alone dealt with it in some less explicit or expository way. Skymining often carries with it an element of neologia, such that a new term is given by the originator such that even a very common concept can be re-hashed in accord with a particular framework.

Conceptualization can easily correct these problems, and skymining-form articles (ledes first) can be rewritten conceptually, even while still giving a strong degree of weight to the "originator". They must deprecate any attributions from the first few sentences at least, and deal instead with the direct meaning of the topic/concept in question. Articles about particular re-formulations of general concepts can use conceptualization to amend the lede, for sake of putting the skymined concept into a more general context, and linking to those more general (conceptual) articles. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concept&oldid=1227075978"