Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Philosophy

	WikiProject Philosophy Pages needing attention/Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy article · category · portal
Main project page  → General Discussion watch  → Join the project  → Categories  → Open tasks Article alerts watch Pages needing attention watch  → Category  → Stubs  → Articles proposed for deletion  → BLP chopping block  → Cleanup listing Assessment  → Worklist  → Log watch  → Statistics New articles watch  → Rules  → Log Requests for comment watch Requests for peer review watch Requested articles Reference desk Popular pages Showcase
Task forces Philosophers log join Literature log join Aesthetics log join Epistemology log join Ethics log join Logic log join Metaphysics log join Social and political log join Language log join Mind log join Religion log join Science log join Analytic log join Continental log join Eastern log join Marxism log join Anarchism log join Ancient log join Medieval log join Modern log join Contemporary log join
Portals Philosophy talk Aesthetics talk Ethics talk Epistemology talk Logic talk Metaphysics talk Philosophy of science talk Mind and Brain talk Thinking talk Anarchism talk Existentialism talk Social and political talk
Index All philosophy topics: (A-C) (D-H) (I-Q) (R-Z) All philosophers: (A-C) (D-H) (I-Q) (R-Z) Outline of philosophy  changes Glossary of philosophy  changes List of philosophies  changes
Templates {{Philosophy}} {{Philosophy topics}} {{portal}} {{PhilCOTW}} {{PhilosophyTasks}} {{PhilosophyTasksBox}} {{Infobox Philosopher}} {{PhilInvit}} Stubs  → {{Philo-stub}}  → {{Philosopher-stub}}  → {{Philo-book-stub}}  → {{Hindu-philo-stub}}  → {{Philos-novel-stub}}  → {{ethics-stub}}  → {{logic-stub}} Userboxen  → {{User WP Philosophy}}  → {{User WP Philosophers}}  → {{User WP Philosophical lit}}  → {{User WP Aesthetics}}  → {{User WP Epistemology}}  → {{User WP Ethics}}  → {{User WP Logic}}  → {{User WP Metaphysics}}  → {{User WP Soc+Pol Phil}}  → {{User WP Continental Philosophy}}  → {{User WP Anarchism}}  → {{User WP Analytic Philosophy}}  → {{User WP Marxism}}  → {{User WP Eastern Phil}}  → {{User WP Ancient Phil}}  → {{User WP Medieval Phil}}  → {{User WP Modern Phil}}  → {{User WP Contemporary Phil}}  → {{User WP Phil of religion}}  → {{User WP Phil of mind}}  → {{User WP Phil of science}}  → {{User WP Phil of language}}
Editor resources Project structure Guidelines for readability in philosophy articles Style guide for philosophy articles Requirements for criticisms in philosophy Philosophy reference resources Practices to eliminate geographic bias Category:Philosophy Categories in Philosophy Star of Sophia Nominations
Related WikiProjects Alternative views talk Arts talk Atheism talk Biblical criticism talk Biography (academians) talk Hindu Philosophy talk History of Science talk History talk Islamic philosophy talk Linguistics talk Literature talk Mathematics talk Middle ages talk Mythology talk Physics talk Rational skepticism talk Religion talk Science talk Spirituality talk Christian theology workgroup talk
v • d • e  · c

See also: Category:Philosophy articles needing attention See also: Category:Philosophy stubs

[edit] To be manually checked, deleted or moved to article's talk page:

• Critique_of_Pure_Reason Importance: High; Class: B (!?) Original research, etc. Needs a rewrite.Ostracon (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Nicomachean Ethics is having trouble getting enough attention from interested editors, so that there are section headings with nothing worth saying underneath, and this has been for a long time. I am working on it recently but it is a big job. I don't know if it would help, but the low importance rating this project gives it seems pretty wrong to me. This is surely a core work in the history of all philosophy? I guess it is a work some people consider difficult, but there must be some people out there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Opinion is very anaemic article that doesn't seem to get any attention from you lot!  :-) Jaymax (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unbelieving. A new article with some problems. I have commented on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Anti-clericalism. The article is written primarily from a hostile Catholic perspective and does not explain the intellectual and political origins of anti-clericalism or refer to the ideas of leading anticlerical philosophers of the Enlightenment in the US, UK or France. --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Experimental philosophy This article misuses a number of philosophical terms, most egregiously "analytic philosophy." The range of references is also very narrow -- most are from one author. It is unclear if this topic should be categorized under philosophy or psychology as it deals largely with cognitive science.75.210.183.226 (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Logic (transclusion)

• T-schema could do with expansion
• Statement (logic) See for yourself
• History of logic Needs material post Frege (yes really!)
• Philosophy of logic This article is under construction
• Non-logical symbol the lede is dreadful; edit in progress
• interpretation (logic) edit in progress
• Logical connective the lead paragraph is poorly drafted
• Logical constant The Stanford encyclopedia article puts this one to shame
  
• inference has fallen into disrepair
• Deductive reasoning edit in progress: (This article is really inadequate and has errors although: (a)the article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale (b) is pointed to by Argument as the main article (c) is diverted to by Deductive argument)
  

Eg. The lead paragraph was the inspiring:
Deductive reasoning, according to many dictionaries,[1] is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information.

--Philogo (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)--Philogo (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Counterfactuals Is anyone willing to make extensive revisions and additions to this page with me? Pjwerner (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've nominated Negative proof for deletion and would like some input from others. I have never seen the term Negative proof used to mean "Conclude X because there is no proof of ~X". That's a straightforward Argument from ignorance fallacy, far as I can figger, but please let me know if I'm mistaken and this article should be kept. Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I've never heard of it. Article has two refs, as one says "Negative Proof is a special case of the fallacy of Denying The Antecedent if we accept the additional premise that observing a phenomenon implies that it exists. With this additional premise, the above argument can be rewritten:...". --Philogo 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that Safalra's website counts as a reliable source. There is, nonetheless, one way in which Safalra appears to distinguish negative proof from Argument from ignorance: According to Safalra, the former is about the existence of some phenomenon while the latter is about the truth of some statement. With this definition, it is obvious that every instance of the so-called negative proof fallacy is an argument from ignorance, but not the other way around. In any case, this proposed difference is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. Phiwum (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Burden of proof (logical fallacy) I think this fallacy is supposed to be: setting the burden of proof unreasonably high. Again, maybe some critical thinking texts have referred to this as an informal fallacy, but I haven't seen it. In any case, the article as written is a bit confusing, with more emphasis on citing examples than with citing discussions of the fallacy itself. Can we get some appropriate sources for this article? Phiwum (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• logic stub category articles (dictionary-short articles with no cites or references) see list is at User:Hotfeba/logic dictionary stubs.

• Principle of bivalence is a mess, and is important to some other articles. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)