Talk:Jerry Fodor

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Christofurio in topic Absence of Fiona Cowey
Good articleJerry Fodor has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 13, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 1, 2017.
Current status: Good article

Extremely exhausted

edit

--Francesco Franco 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) i will have to finish this off-line within the next two days.--Lacatosias 17:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Posted

edit

Posted second installment. I'll keep working on it.--Lacatosias 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Failed Good Article

edit

The article has very long sections. I'm sure they could be broken up into sub-sections so as not to appear so drawn-out. joturner 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good article status added. joturner 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Footnotes

edit

The footnotes are a mess. The superscripts do not correspond to the listed references. Some of the items listed as references (e.g., Carnap, Harman) do not appear to be cited in the body. I'm not going to try to change them myself, since I am not sure that I would fix them properly.

Yes, yes, give me a chance please!! I have just tranformed the artcile into three or four separete artcile and I had to move out the referenecs that correspond with the footnotes on the other pages.

Keep in midn, I've doe ALL of this work by myself. I'll have the references on THIS page (the tiothers are alerady in order) straightened out this afternoon.--Lacatosias 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also please sign you damned posts!! Critisms are welcome but anonymity (and I don't have admin status so I can't check into the logs as far as I know) is rude.

--Lacatosias 09:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

( half hour later) So what's the problem now??--Lacatosias 10:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Photo

edit

It seems that the photo of Fodor will have to be taken down because of uncertainty of copyright status. That's unfortunate. I think it defintely enhances the quality of the article for non-academic readers. Is it possible for someone over there in the States (I'm in Italy) to try to get copyright permission for this photo or replace it with one that is in the public domain? --Lacatosias 16:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Resolved. --Lacatosias 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply


Photo is still lacking, BTW. Someone should probably write to Fodor at some point and ask permission, if anyone's has the time and interest any more.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This isn't exactly the most becoming photograph, either. static shakedown 20:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pronunciation

edit

I think it would be nice (and prudent) to provide the pronunciation of some surnames that aren't intuitively clear. These include, notably, Fodor, Haugeland, as well as many others. They pose a difficulty for nonnative speakers, and I've even noticed native speakers occasionally stumble over them or pronounce them in different ways. Ariosto 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's pronounced "Frodo."137.205.183.109 (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Italic text

be back

edit

I'll come back and take a look at the "professionally edited" Featured Article that will have been made of this and numerous other philosophy articles in about three months. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


Eliminativism vs. reductionism

edit

Is there any difference? A reductionist is either a reductionist in the weak sense that they think that mental phenomena are entirely determined by physical law (in which case they agree with Fodor), or they're reductionists in the sense that they don't think beliefs, desires, etc. really exist, in which case they're eliminativists. Is there an intermediate position? Cadr 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess type physicalism could be a reductionist position which isn't eliminativist and which Fodor doesn't agree with. Cadr 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
As on: Searle?137.205.183.109 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Sweeps

edit

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Discussion of Gall

edit

The discussion of Gall is inaccurate and uncited. Here is discussion of Gall, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.002043 Also see the wiki article on him for more info. Iamwpj (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jerry Fodor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is comprehensive, neutral, stable, NPOV, well-referenced with high quality sources, and meets most other criteria for FA status. It failed FAC becasue of issues of difficulty of prose and wordiness. It seems reasonable to put in A (slightly above GA and below FA).--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jerry Fodor. 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) 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Jerry passed away today

edit

So edits to this page should be made to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.35.4 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, shoutouts if you also came here from the front page. Like, I thought this was the guy who made the travel guides... but no. Whatevs. Peace out.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.220.174 (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply 

Absence of Fiona Cowey

edit

Fiona Cowey's book, WHAT'S WITHIN (1999), was largely aimed at reviving old-school empiricism of the Lockean sort. I'm simplifying greatly, but she saw Fodor and Chomsky as the chief rationalist innatist threats to her neo-Lockean project and devoted much of the book to a sweeping assault on Fodor in particular. It inspired a lengthy retort from Fodor, sharply worded enough to excite a stir in academia at the time. https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/jerry/26-personal-sites/jerry-fodor/277-doing-without-what-s-within-fiona-cowie-s-critique-of-nativism I find it very odd that none of this is mentioned. I inserted a few words under "Criticism" in this article, but it was reverted. I'm not sure why, but perhaps it needs further development. Volunteers? Ideas? --Christofurio (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cowie, BTW, is a professor at the California Institute of Technology. Her critique of contemporary innatists began life as a PhD dissertation.