Talk:Meta-ontology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merger proposal

Per my suggestion at the Philosophy notice board. This subject does not appear in the Oxford Companion and the sourced material relates to a limited number of authors who appear to do no more than use the term. Given that we should depend on third party sources the notability of this as an article is questionable. Meta-ethics, Meta-logic and others are in the Oxford Companion so they are legitimate. Happy to withdraw the proposal if the subject does feature in equivalents to the Oxford Companion. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Reject: The area of metaontology has lots of activity and has sufficient notability to stand alone, despite Snowded's continued attempts to curtail additions to it. As the article mentions, the term was coined in the 50's by Inwagen, and the Carnap-Quine debate is a huge subject in itself. Meta-ontology is discussed by Hofweber in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is a topic discussed by several well known modern philosophers.Chalmers Thomasson Schaffer Rosenkrantz and has a long bibliography on PhilPapers A recent book has several essays on the topic. It even has sub-fields like deflationary metaontology. The subject of meta-ontology is viewed by some as a sub-field of ontology but, as Hofweber (who holds this opinion) says: "[meta-ontology], strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed... Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. "

From the standpoint of WP, there is enough to say about meta-ontology and enough sources to consider, that it is better to break it out as an article in its own right rather than introduce a large sub-topic in Ontology and embroiling that article in Snowded's objections to its treatment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It doesn't seem important as a topic on its own. The lack of content supporting the term as a notable stand-alone term justifies merging it into the main ontology article. Ducknish (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the article has numerous sources, and Brews Ohare has given sources in his above message, I think you need to explain your remarks and address Brews Ohare's points. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose — The nominating editor's reason is based on his claim about the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is a list of very brief entries that the lone editor of that work has chosen. Doesn't seem like a good reason to merge. Also, I think the points in Brews Ohare's message need to be addressed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for Philosophy. I used that as an illustration of the problem about notability. Brew's references show that the word has some use, but it has not yet reached the point where the subject deserves mention in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The Stanford example uses the word in an entry called "logic and ontology", it does not have a section by that name. Hofweber's opinion is also controversial and even he says that broadly construed this is a topic within ontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "The Oxford companion has an editor but also a large team working on it and from one of the major centres for Philosophy." — It looks like there is only one editor who decides what goes into the work, not a large team from Oxford. Do you agree? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"An assembly of 249 distinguished philosophers have contributed to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy " . This type of book is extensively peer reviewed and they do provide authoritative sources as to what is notable. Yes the editor has the final say, but said editor has high status in the profession. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "This type of book is extensively peer reviewed..." — I see no evidence that there is a peer-review system of referees operating for the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Perhaps you could share your evidence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? A major review of a field, published by one of the worlds leading academic publishers with a huge team of editors, edited by a senior and respected professor? Are you really challenging it as an authority on the field? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you have no evidence for your claim that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is peer-reviewed by a system of referees. Sorry, but your opinion is not sufficient for me.

There seems to be enough reliable sources and material on meta-ontology to support the existence of the article. Also, you haven't responded to Brews ohare's points regarding this. So I'm still opposed to your proposal. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt you could find direct line evidence for any major book. An Editor (not the author mark you) with an editorial team of 249 Philosophers is I think clear evidence of peer review. WP:RS accepts the major publishers as authoritative so if you are worried about wikipedia policy I think we are covered here, but you could take your "lone editor" (still amused by that) argument to the notice board. The simple fact remains that the subject of this article is not considered significant enough to warrant an entry in this or any other equivalent authority that I have seen ----Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your LOL approach to comments is lamentable. A bit of respect for well-meant commentary would lead you to reply directly to points raised and avoid injection of derision as a ploy. A serous response would admit that meta-ontology is a widely used term as indicated in the many references provided in the article and on this Talk page.

Your criterion that there isn't an independent article under the name 'meta-ontology' in some general encyclopedia is not the sole determinant of its importance. You ignore the fact that meta-ontology is discussed in some such works as a sub-topic under 'ontology', as is appropriate because meta-ontology is a sub-topic of ontology. There is considerable material pertaining to meta-ontology, as evidenced here and in meta-ontology, and it is useful to separate this material in meta-ontology where it can be discussed at length, rather than only as an abbreviated sub-section in Ontology, which has plenty on its plate already. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Brews but the assertion that a single editor made all the decisions is derisory so LOL was mild. Its not clear what a definition of 'widely' would be here. The number of references is not that great. Happy to look at references where "meta-ontology" is specifically referenced under ontology, but not where it isn't but you think that is what they mean. Otherwise listing is not the sole determinant, but it is one significant one. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support This subject, I think, is not quite a seperate subject from Ontology. It would be nice to include in the main article.75* 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistant N: To repeat a published observation: in his § 3.3 Different conceptions of ontology Hofweber says: "[meta-ontology], strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed... Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. " Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's biased revisions

In this action Snowded has changed the description in the lead paragraph to claim that it was Quine's analysis of Carnap's internal-external distinction that led to his development of the techniques involved in ontological commitment and to the essay by Inwagen that made the term 'meta-ontology' more popular. This is untrue, as a look at Quine's Two dogmas paper and Inwagen's Meta-ontology show immediately. The pertinent issue is Carnap's analytic-synthetic distinction. That matter has been pointed out to Snowded repeatedly, and yet he flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary to insist upon this wrong identification.

In his edit Snowded also removes the See-also link to the article Internal–external distinction but retains the link to Analytic-synthetic distinction, a bias that has no basis as both aspects are important and much discussed in the philosophical literature, including in particular Thomasson, Eklund, Price, Bird, Hirsch, Putnam and other authors whose work is linked on this Talk page and in reverted material once found in Meta-ontology before Snowded got to work. Brews ohare (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have again corrected these mistakes. Brews ohare (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pushing the edge of WP:AGF with that heading Brews. As it happens I restored the previous stable version which had words originally drafted by you. I did that on the grounds that the article is in large part a coatrack and you were making it worse not better. You seem to have a major ownership issue with any editor here (or elsewhere) who disagrees with any of your various attempts at synthesis or loose collections of original quotations based on your own reading of limited sources. I have not reverted the minor change you made necessary, but the huge expansion of material is not accepted. If you want to remove the silly accusations that might help you down stream. For the moment try, please try, to understand that the objection is not necessarily to the content of your multiple additions but to the relevance to the article subject. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Although very technically speaking your two changes 'restored a previous stable version', your edit makes only the two inadvisable corrections mentioned here. From Talk-page discussion of your prior attempts to enforce these changes, you know that one of these changes is wrong, and the other ill-advised, but made them anyway. This action is consistent with your policy evidenced over and over again on this Talk page directed toward eliminating sensible treatment of the Internal–external distinction in Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out further that your edit is a direct reversion of my preceding two edits instating these changes and overriding my edit comments: Let's avoid introducing historical inaccuracy for polemical purposes and Let's include both of Carnap's distinctions in See..also; not just one. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No Brews, the article is already over extended beyone its subject. And stop casting aspersions, if you want to dig yourself a second wikipedia grave, to go with your physics one then I can't stop you but I advise against it. The issue is not the content one you are arguing, but the appropriateness of the content to this article ----Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 25 June 20

The first of your two changes introduced an error; the second introduced bias. Corrections are entirely appropriate. Neither is an extension of the article. Brews ohare (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Section titled: Quine's approach

This section of meta-ontology is partly misreferenced. The second sentence says:

"Quine argued that there is no sharp differentiation between internal and external questions, and their separation in Carnap's sense is untenable.[9][10][11]

[9] Quine - Two dogmas of empiricism

[10] Quine - On what there is

[11] Quine - On Carnap's views of ontology

The statement is accurate, but as pointed out in internal-external distinction the first two citations, [9] & [10] are incorrect, and instead, along with [11], Quine's Word and Object should be cited. References [9] and [10] pertain to the analytic-synthetic distinction.

I've fixed these references as mentioned above. Brews ohare (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As a general article on meta-ontology, this section of meta-ontology should supplement the separate topics described individually in more detail in analytic-synthetic distinction and internal-external distinction with an overview placing the two aspects in proper perspective relative to one another, providing a proper introduction to the separate articles.

In particular, it might explain how Quine misunderstood the relation between the two issues, leading to a long-standing confounding of their roles and of the arguments involved that has since been clarified by Price, Bird, Thomasson, Allspector-Kelly, Yablo, Eklund, Hirsch, Putnam and others. Brews ohare (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Quine-Carnap debate and the two distinctions were issues in philosophy before anyone thought to use the term meta-ontology. They are subjects in their own right. This article is about meta-ontology and the interest is how authors use the term in contrast with those who just talk about ontology. In that respect If there is s substantive issue around different treatments it might be notable. Otherwise its not ----Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I'd agree that there is a minor point to address in the discussion between those who use the term 'meta-ontology' and those who do not. However, that topic is possibly more an historical question related to how recently this term has come into use. The main topic of Meta-ontology is, of course, that portion of Ontology now carved out and designated by the term 'meta-ontology', and has little to do with an appraisal of who uses the term and who prefers to leave it lumped under the general auspices of ontology in the large. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryle, Price and Thomasson

In this edit Snowded has removed the discussion of "what we mean when we ask 'What is ?' described by Ryle, Price, and Thomasson, along with the references to their work. There can be no doubt that this topic is the very definition of 'meta-ontology'. Nonetheless, Snowded's in-line justification for removal is that this material is selective addition of Ryle, per previous talk page comments this is nothing to do with explaining the subject of the article. In fact, there has been no discussion of Ryle on this Talk page to date, and Price has discussed Ryle at length. His introduction of two meanings for exist is called by Price 'use' and 'mention' and this classification is explicitly supported in Thomasson's work, which refers to Price in this connection.

I have restored a slightly modified version of this material. Brews ohare (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It might need pointing out again that Inwagen defined 'meta-ontology' as discussion of the question of what one means by "what is ?" Perhaps I need to point out that if one discusses the meaning and usage of 'exists', one is questioning the meaning of the question "What is ?". It might also be pointed out that this question is the crux of quantifier variance. We can leave to another occasion the question of whether President Clinton was interested in meta-ontology when he said the answers to some questions about himself "depend upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why chose Ryle? More or less every modern philosopher and some not so modern have discussed this issue. You obviously intend to keep adding your own summary of philosophers (as you did with Wittgenstein) and you are being obdurate in not recognising that the opposition is to th Ryle per se, but to your addition of coatrack material. I suggest for your own sake you self-revert until the wider issues is resolved. If you don't I will ----Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)