Talk:Meta-ontology

Digression on acceptance of the term 'meta-ontology'

Is it? As far as I remember the idea that there is a portion of Ontology now designed meta-ontology is by no means universal. Its not even mentioned as a subject in many of the reference works. Unless and until something changes in that the use is confined to a limited number of authors within one tradition within Philosophy. You can't assume their position by using the article to advance it. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It is a non-issue. If some people prefer to talk of 'cattle' and others prefer to break it up into 'beef cattle', 'dairy cattle', etc. so what? That doesn't change the adopted meaning of the sub-field of 'meta-ontology' and does not imply some striking revelation about 'ontology'. Its just a classification of topics, like an 'in-box' and an 'out-box' separates the 'mail'. Apparently some feel that this division is not useful, like yourself, and others think it is a useful subdivision, like Hofweber. We don't need unanimity on the utility of a subdivision to discuss the subject area as it is defined by those who use the term. Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What you are really trying to do here, Snowded, is to raise the subject of WP:Notability, which is the point of your merge proposal on this page. I think the subject of 'meta-ontology' has plenty of activity and it is already decided that it is notable enough to warrant its own article. If you really want to introduce a deletion proposal, then do so. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Then show me a reference Brews, something that supports your view of the term as an established sub-division. At the moment all we have is your conclusion drawn from use of the term by some authors within one part of one tradition in the field. Your Hofweber reference contradicts your position by the way, a similar misunderstanding as evidenced in your speculation as to the motives of other editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Snowded - go ahead and propose deletion. There is no point in arguing with you in this thread. As for Hofweber, it is you who misread him:

"To figure this out is the task of meta-ontology, which 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. Many of the philosophically most fundamental questions about ontology really are meta-ontological questions." [bold font added]

— Thomas Hofweber, Logic and Ontology: Different conceptions of ontology

Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am very glad to have found this page as I am doing some very extensive research into philosophy of mind, and for philosophy of mind meta-ontology is a useful term and does not need to be deleted. If this entry adds to the categorization of ontology into more useful and usable subcategories then it is doing precisely what a public forum should do, encourage thinking and or re-thinking of stale categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astridjj (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So much for my 'misunderstanding' and 'speculation", eh? Brews ohare (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the article Brews you will see he admits the use is not universal but he finds it useful. No one is contesting its use by some philosophers, its your assumption that it is an established sub-division which is the issue. My original comment stands, including the observation that you generally fail to bother to read what does not agree with your then assumed position. Agree there is no point in arguing with you on this, but until you are prepared to engage there will be no progress ----Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made no claims about how 'established' the terminology is. Like Hofweber, utility is enough for me. And it is found useful by a great many authors. Propose deletion or drop the subject - it is a non-issue otherwise. Brews ohare (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to add material Brews, find supporting references or give up on it ----Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of violating the Prime directive, it seems like meta-ontology is a term that is used enough by reliable sources to make it a valid and descriptive title for this article. If there is any reliable source that has questioned the appropriateness of using the term, it might be helpful to come forward with the link for this discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not in question Bob. It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack. Hofweber suggests that seeing meta-ontology as one of the divisions of ontology would be helpful, but he also admits that this is not universal by any means. It also doesn't appear as such a division in most of the encyclopaedias, directories etc. So it has not really come on the radar other than within a subset of those who focus on linguistics and logic. That means that subsuming wider philosophical issues under its banner is problematic. What we need is something which explains how the term is used, makes it clear where it is used and references other articles as appropriate. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "It is the expansion of the article to include any and all subjects that people who use the term mention, especially when those subjects already have their own articles. That is a coatrack." — I looked up what "coatrack" means in Wikipedia at WP:Coatrack and found,

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."

I wouldn't call this a coatrack article since it legitimately discusses the subject of meta-ontology. I personally did a major edit of a section "Linguistic frameworks" which you seemed to approve. It seems that your objection has to do with adding material that is not sufficiently related to the subject of meta-ontology, rather than the whole article being just a coatrack per the Wikipedia definition of coatrack article. However, objecting that proposed material is not sufficiently related to the topic of the article is a legitimate objection and it seems that the burden for giving evidence that it is sufficiently related is on the editor who is proposing the addition. Since that issue probably won't be settled between the two of you, an RfC might be useful. If you do have an RfC, try to distill the dispute to the simplest form regarding just one specific and limited amount of material, so that potential commenters aren't discouraged from commenting because of TL;DR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, you proposed what seemed like a reasonable compromise. As we know it was rejected. There comes a time when legitimate explanation goes too far and qualifies as a coatrack. If you read Brews comment he considered meta-ontology to be the same thing as ontology so he is pursuing the line of argument he first made on Philosophy and which was rejected there. I've run out of patience with this over multiple articles, including his setting up new articles with material rejected elsewhere. If someone whats to raise a fifth RfC around Brews edits fine. I suspect he is likely to get sanctioned before much happens there however. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: The problem here is that there are no editors on WP with strong interest in the subject. Most philosophy articles were written in 2006-2007 and have only been tweaked ever since because there just aren't editors around that have any desire for more extensive engagement. That leaves Snowded as the lone voice to deal with. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again not true Brews. There are a small number of us who work on these articles. When you have got engagement through an RfC you never been backed in your views. Your aggressive attitude to editors who disagreed with you in those RfCs further discourages engagement. Look at the way you handled Bob's attempt to help. Few want to engage in extended and lengthy discussions that are appropriate with under graduate students exploring a subject, but not with editing an encyclopaedia ----Snowded ^TALK 04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You continue to state over and over that the work described by those that do use the term 'meta-ontology' must be proven notable or dropped. You continue to suggest it is a term used only by some insignificant minority whose opinions are best left out of WP.

You have proposed on this Talk page that the whole subject be reduced to a mention in the article Ontology. That is your view. That is the basis for all your objections. It has gone nowhere. So put this view of insignificance aside, and focus instead on making this the most complete and authoritative article on meta-ontology available on the web, whatever its importance in the world of ontology. Making the article Meta-ontology all that it can be is not slap in the face for ontology or for WP or for you. It's just an article on a facet of ontology that has the attention of Price, Bird, Thomasson, Allspector-Kelly, Yablo, Eklund, Hirsch, Putnam and others. Brews ohare (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The merge proposal has three for and two against Brews. Given its not overwealming I haven't pressed it. Your trotting out the same references just makes my point. Yes the term is used no question about that. However it is not established as a subset within the field as a whole and the whole "meta" thing is a characteristic of one school of thought anyway. Even if it was so established then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack. Any article on an area of philosophy summarises the domains concerns, it does not elaborate the debates with multiple quotations. That material (without the excessive quotation and synthesis you are prone to) belongs in specific articles. Please address the points made by other editors rather than your straw man assumptions as to their motivations ----Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, "even if it [meta-ontology] was so established [as a universally accepted term] then replicating material already on other articles is a coatrack." Snowded, you've already got a Plan B ready in case the blockade of Plan A fails. As for this Plan B, a general article, like Philosophy say, introduces pages on subtopics, and so covers some of the same ground. However, it is also supposed to provide perspective on how these topics relate to each other and to the main topic. Likewise, Meta-ontology needs to address the various facets discussed in analytic-synthetic distinction and internal-external distinction among others so as to put the whole together in relation to its parts. That is not coatracking. It's doing its job.

"A WP:Coatrackarticle is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."

There is no way that any of the proposed additions to Meta-ontology fit this description. It is alarming that you are so opposed to this article that you are already arranging your second line of obstruction. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merged to Ontology

Sections of this article have been merged to 'Ontology' in a subsection of that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.202.78 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Undone part re this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Interested in how you think we can get the article to some semblance of relevance Bob. There is a lot of coatrack stuff there. At the end of the day I don't think that we have more than 2/3 paragraphs. Happy to ride with that as a short article, but not with something that ends up as a general discussion of what a few philosophers think is a sub-division of Ontology ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what problems you're seeing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosphers, some of whom simply use the term a few of whom assert it is a useful sub-division of Ontology. It follows that material should illustrate the use of the term, but should not be an extended essay on the subject. That belongs in ontology (which is established as a term, exists in directories etc.). Thus most of the discussion of the Q-C debate should therefore be reduced to a few sentences for example. I am suggesting we work to do something like that, or possibly open the RfC again on the merge ----Snowded ^TALK 04:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re "meta-ontology as a subject is not accepted outside of a minority of philosophers" — Since I don't know of any reliable source that agrees with or disputes your claim, I can't really discuss that with you.
• Re "essay", I thought that was a term in Wikipedia that is used for a page that contains editors' own ideas, rather than an article that is based on reliable sources.
• I think the article should be organized in terms of ideas, rather than people such as Carnap and Quine. That's one reason that I titled a section I worked on "Linguistic frameworks", rather than Carnap. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It not used as a term in any of the major directories and one of the sources admits its use is controversial. Essay like is nothing to do with sources there or not, its style. I'm open to adding some sections on subjects with references where people are talking about meta-ontology, your earlier edit for example. For the moment I have simplified it and removed the tags. Hopefully we can build up from there in a more sensible manner ----Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re "I'm open to adding some sections on subjects with references where people are talking about meta-ontology, your earlier edit for example." — If that's the case, I don't understand why you just deleted it, i.e. the section "Linguistic frameworks". --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Cause it was imbedded in a whole bunch of other stuff. If we are going to put in a "subjects discussed" type section then lets get it in there along with a few others. My goal was to get back to something sustainable then rebuild ----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see why you went ahead and tried to include that section by itself... It doesn't work because it needs to be a summary of the relevant Carnap background, Internal–external distinction. As the author says (while providing it as background for her own deflationary reconstruction) it's easily dismissed on two accounts, that no cares what "logical internal" discussions are about and the "factual internal" distinction is just quaint verificationism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion

The cover description for the anthology Metametaphysics goes like this:

Metaphysics asks questions about existence: for example, do numbers really exist? Metametaphysics asks questions about metaphysics: for example, do its questions have determinate answers? If so, are these answers deep and important, or are they merely a matter of how we use words? What is the proper methodology for their resolution?

It should be immediately clear to anyone editing Metaphysics, Ontology, Meta-metaphysics, or Meta-ontology that not only did the publisher not understand the distinction between metaphysics and ontology, but neither do the majority of professional philosophers. Partially, the reason is just language, different words used for the same ideas, but mainly this is due to the philosophy of the times which imagines itself to be the only metaphysics of all possible metaphysics. The consequence is that terms like metaphysics-ontology lose distinction and collapse into the same meaning, the search for existence.

This thinking is parochial. There are differences between possible and developed metaphysical systems based on the fundamental logic employed, and on the target application of the systems. Parmenides, Plato's Ideas, some Pythagoreanisms, Plato's Realism, Aristotle's Realism all use binary logic with non-contradiction, yet are quite distinct. Modern philosophy ignores these fundamental metaphysical differences, and seeks ontological solutions, which will tend not to fit within the logical constraints.

Wikipedians have a problem. We are bound by what is commonly accepted in peer-reviewed literature. When a crucial issue is rarely raised, then references, which do exist, are difficult to unearth. That difficulty should not mean that we must bury the crucial issue as well. BlueMist (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As one with a sincere interest in relational ontology, process ontology, and process-relational ontology, I was bothered by the fact that these were not mentioned in this article, which describes ontology as mainly a matter of which kinds of entities "exist" and do not "exist". That's a pretty narrow, and very incomplete, understanding of ontology. Jrivermartin (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Meta-ontology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028135407/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Restructured and added content

My last edit was rather big so, I'll go over some of the things I added/changed and why I added/changed them. The previous lead-section lacked a proper definition which I added. I split the "Overview"-section into 3 sections: "Relation to ontology", "Realism" and "Anti-realism". Most of the added material concerns the "Realism"-section, which previously only mentioned the difference between the neo-Aristotelian approach and the Quinean approach in passing. The comment on the Carnap-Quine debate seemed to be out of context since the debate wasn't mentioned anywhere before. I moved it to the "Anti-realism"-section and provide some context to it concerning Carnap's anti-realism.Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)