- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Philosophy
- ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines? Source: [1][2]
- ALT1: ... that Ludwig Wittgenstein understood philosophy as a linguistic therapy that aims to dispel misunderstandings caused by the confusing structure of natural language? Source: [3][4]
- ALT2: ... that Isaac Newton's opus on physics was at the time considered a work of philosophy? Source: [5][6]
- ALT3: ... that Bertrand Russell advocated philosophy as a means to free oneself from prejudices and self-deceptive notions derived from common sense? Source: [7][8]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Beaufort
- Comment:
References
- ^ Tuomela 1985, p. 1.
- ^ Shivendra 2006, pp. 15–16.
- ^ Joll, lead section, §2c. Ordinary Language Philosophy and the Later Wittgenstein.
- ^ Biletzki & Matar 2021.
- ^ Cotterell 2017, p. 458.
- ^ Maddy 2022, p. 24.
- ^ Russell 1912, p. 91.
- ^ Pojman & Vaughn 2009, p. 2.
Sources
- Tuomela, Raimo (30 September 1985). Science, Action, and Reality. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-277-2098-6.
- Shivendra, Chandra Soti (2006). Philosophy of Education. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-81-7156-637-2.
- Joll, Nicholas. "Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 1 February 2022.
- Biletzki, Anat; Matar, Anat (2021). "Ludwig Wittgenstein: 3.7 The Nature of Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
- Cotterell, Brian (29 August 2017). Physics And Culture. World Scientific. p. 458. ISBN 978-1-78634-378-9.
- Maddy, Penelope (2022). A Plea for Natural Philosophy: And Other Essays. Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-750885-5.
- Russell, Bertrand (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. p. 91.
- Pojman, Louis P.; Vaughn, Lewis, eds. (2009). Philosophy: The Quest for Truth (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The article is certainly DYK-eligible! A QPQ has been done (hope to see HF back around these parts soon), and I have no concerns with the article content that would be a problem for DYK. I'm unsold on the hooks, though -- there's a seed of a great hook in ALT0, but it needs more concision to shine. Allow me to propose...
- ALT0a: ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
- ALT0b: ... that most of the sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
- ALT0b is a little more terse in a way that tends to work at DYK, but "individual" is a meaningful enough word in this context that I'm giving options with and without it to allow for some flexibility. Are you fine with these? Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- And another that just occurred to me, given all three are explicitly mentioned in the article. I think this is the best bet:
- ALT0c: ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
- Thoughts again? Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Thanks for the suggestions, they all make good candidates. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Hi, I like option "c" best, but I'm fine with the others as well. Thanks for looking at this! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- And another that just occurred to me, given all three are explicitly mentioned in the article. I think this is the best bet:
Article recently brought to GA, long enough, neutral, hooks are cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing, hooks are within the character limit, accurate, sourced, probably of interest. QPQ is done. No image, which is a shame. After all, Martin Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. I find a general consensus for ALT0c. Free to fly. SN54129 12:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I added an image of Newton and the apple tree to the article (Philosophy#Etymology), which could be included. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Go for it, PatrickJWelsh; actually, it's extremely apt, considering that to modern eyes, Newton was a mathematician, whereas, as the hook suggests, he would also have been a philosopher to contemporaries. Well thought! SN54129 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I added an image of Newton and the apple tree to the article (Philosophy#Etymology), which could be included. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
