Talk:Fuzzy concept

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wow

This article is nearly impossible to read and it should be maybe a few paragraphs long, max. Temerarius (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Language

I'm way too tired to do anything but I do want to note that the ordinary language section would benefit greatly from a semiotic perspective. Urmarkt (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I do not accept this criticism. In writing this article, I base myself on a lifetime of research experience, like, 35 years, including working as a research statistician in survey design. What the hell is a "semiotic perspective"? I studied with a leading Australian semiologist specializing in forms design. Constructive suggestions and improvements are welcome, but not "fuzzy" criticisms which mean nothing. Admittedly there is little theoretical literature on the logical and semantic properties of fuzzy concepts, but the term is widely used in scientific discourse. It therefore merits a wiki entry. User:Jurriaan 20:33 8 may 2010 (UTC)

The irony in the notion of choice for de Groot's analysis (#Psychology)

Hello, I am debating whether or not to draw readers' attention to the irony in the notion that Dutch theologian Kees de Groot has analyzed and defined as a fuzzy concept: 'that psychotherapy is like an "implicit religion" ... (it all depends on what one means by "psychotherapy" and "religion")' (#Psychology, ¶2 [not counting the bulleted list]). More precisely, I mean to say that the notion, a fuzzy concept itself, compares the vast collections of countless other fuzzy concepts that psychology and religion contain, on which psychotherapy and theology are respectively based. The next section down, #Applications, affirms the idea that religion generally contains systems of fuzzy concepts whose possible meanings are highly personalized and postulated through hermeneutics; perhaps there could even be an additional note along the lines of: "(See [[Fuzzy concept#Applications|Applications]] below)." However, I am not sure if it is really necessary or fitting for an encyclopedia to bring readers' attention to this bit of information. Therefore, I am requesting editors' input pertinent to this issue.

Thank you,

BlueCaper (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

,

It is not really the purpose of the article to ironize the use of the concept, although an ironical use of the concept could be noted neutrally if there is evidence of such. The article should be "neutral", and just mention the various viewpoints and uses there are. However, possibly the bit about Kees de Groot could be shifted to the paragraph about religious applications of fuzzy concepts.

Jurriaan (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fuzzy 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the article

I have done more work on the article to improve and reference it, with better layout. I had to do it initially under my own IP address 85.148.154.58 but have now be able to create a new wiki account. User: Jurriaan2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make link to sustainability as an example for a fuzzy concept?

I've just linked from sustainability to here and wonder if we can also link in the other direction? My suggestion is based on this paper. EMsmile (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]