Talk:Mind projection fallacy

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.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Psychology

	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.

Did Kant know about this?

Just read a text that maybe shows that Kant saw at least an instance of the Mind Projection Fallacy. Text below:

Kant identifies transcendental illusion with the propensity to “take a subjective necessity of a connection of our concepts…for an objective necessity in the determination of things in themselves” (A297/B354). Source:Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Maybe it's worth putting some info about this in the article. Rhalah (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy vs. Mistake

There is a long, though hardly proud, tradition centering on some strands in philosophy that finds it reasonable to identify a disliked position, and then attribute the formulation of the position not to a mistake, but to a fallacy. There is a not-so-subtle difference between mistakes and fallacies.

In this particular case, the notion that the world is as one perceives it (or perhaps more perspicuously: that something real in some sense serves as a substrate for any of one's experiences) is a position held by some reasonable philosophers. They may or may not be right. But if they've committed a fallacy, discussion is over: they cannot be right. This is the problem with proliferating "fallacies." Unless someone objects, I think this page ought to be edited to include something to the effect that this isn't a fallacy in any classical sense, and calling it a fallacy is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwithoutabroom (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back Link?

Should Jaynes' bio page contain a link to here? -A.St.V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.20.124 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]