Meta tags:

Headings (most frequently used words):

philosophy, of, science, founders, wp, template, talk, contents, about, brd, no, basis, in, rs, for, separate, section, adolf, grunbaum, natural, vs,

Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (59), philosophy (51), #science (38), and (33), that (29), template (25), this (18), for (16), #founders (16), section (15), but (13), talk (12), you (12), wikipedia (11), comment (11), philosophers (11), page (10), have (9), not (9), article (9), about (8), utc (8), edit (8), are (8), main (8), pages (7), there (7), some (7), reply (7), more (7), add (6), topic (6), seems (6), what (6), discussion (6), latest (6), ago (6), list (6), can (6), very (6), should (6), 2014 (6), would (6), create (6), such (6), contents (5), with (5), epistemology (5), now (5), years (5), other (5), like (5), time (5), don (5), could (5), any (5), your (5), user (5), pov (5), sorting (5), search (4), view (4), terms (4), last (4), articles (4), importance (4), from (4), february (4), few (4), also (4), free (4), they (4), history (4), just (4), out (4), szmithrandir (4), really (4), than (4), presearch (4), szm (4), version (4), must (4), comments (4), these (4), related (4), indeed (4), name (4), modern (4), general (4), category (4), content (4), hide (4), move (4), sidebar (4), text (3), agree (3), non (3), task (3), class (3), categories (3), been (3), which (3), much (3), person (3), natural (3), believe (3), important (3), reader (3), included (3), award (3), his (3), work (3), please (3), adolf (3), grunbaum (3), get (3), help (3), good (3), see (3), above (3), step (3), paragraph (3), two (3), perhaps (3), log (3), those (3), changes (3), brd (3), separate (3), basis (3), still (3), who (3), many (3), popper (3), them (3), strikes (3), here (3), wikiproject (3), tools (3), toggle (2), table (2), contact (2), privacy (2), policy (2), under (2), using (2), was (2), edited (2), july (2), force (2), retrieved (2), confusion (2), added (2), think (2), navigation (2), interest (2), widely (2), only (2), field (2), attention (2), books (2), etc (2), scientific (2), even (2), challenging (2), maybe (2), helpful (2), all (2), long (2), yeah (2), actually (2), mean (2), next (2), attempts (2), identify (2), cites (2), single (2), source (2), then (2), its (2), uploaded (2), speak (2), didn (2), found (2), will (2), she (2), order (2), among (2), include (2), might (2), multiple (2), reflect (2), expert (2), one (2), thing (2), fixed (2), january (2), navibox (2), readers (2), well (2), say (2), made (2), fact (2), phrase (2), era (2), first (2), names (2), kuhn (2), way (2), though (2), founder (2), mentioned (2), special (2), being (2), sorted (2), why (2), random (2), know (2), example (2), project (2), where (2), portal (2), appearance (2), upload (2), file (2), read (2), languages (2), account (2), donate (2), menu (2), mobile, cookie, statement, statistics, developers, code, conduct, legal, safety, contacts, disclaimers, available, additional, may, apply, site, registered, trademark, profit, organization, wikimedia, foundation, inc, use, creative, commons, attribution, sharealike, license, rendered, parsoid, 2024, https, org, index, php, title, template_talk, philosophy_of_science, oldid, 1234886235, same, parts, call, removed, 2023, car, chasm, monts, part, appropriate, contemporary, because, enables, through, views, every, area, great, propose, several, criteria, philosopher, publish, narrow, sub, generate, wide, critical, reviews, standard, dissertations, monographs, win, prestigious, half, century, published, dozens, different, areas, crossroad, intersection, quantum, physics, write, vojvodae, realism, metaphysics, hilary, putnam, carl, hempel, lakatos, principle, hold, gonna, start, amending, philosphers, working, brief, indiscriminate, end, trying, phase, offer, appreciated, overdue, hugetim, sorry, replying, late, misunderstood, previous, when, said, capture, intention, eliminated, templates, unjustified, restored, reversion, accompanying, change, incoherent, incomprehensible, therefore, revert, leave, until, resoultion, risk, administrative, action, due, warring, wants, qualify, already, noted, anything, show, attempt, simply, tries, towards, justifying, balanced, reliable, references, consensus, sources, cannot, hastily, used, justify, allowed, mature, stabilize, alow, input, editors, people, editing, kind, anyone, true, honoured, stand, forth, lead, sure, has, thirdly, thanks, noticed, issues, lower, rows, concepts, metatheories, weasel, admit, nothing, merely, hallucinator, bad, familiar, able, locate, word, alphabetical, tiny, minority, secondly, based, spent, went, over, unfortunately, groups, moderns, favour, indicates, chronologies, basic, navigable, almost, illegible, indicating, subfield, shouldn, bulky, chinese, recently, hlist, dedicated, philosophies, math, phys, chem, bio, gregbard, yes, objective, criterion, less, likely, strange, regard, mention, certainly, cited, commonly, regarded, classics, notice, called, rather, argue, distinction, oversimplified, generally, type, naming, issue, worked, case, terribly, least, whose, put, into, descriptive, approach, turning, textbook, valid, beginning, after, fairly, stable, solidly, sourced, remember, looking, click, want, find, particular, thinkers, implicitly, recommended, often, chronology, appears, bullet, points, reasonably, solid, done, line, thinking, resuscitated, minus, beware, miscategorizing, spencer, regards, anyway, far, opinion, sort, reason, makes, edits, significance, greco, medieval, logical, pyschoanalytical, friendly, curious, delete, quite, review, chapters, leading, influential, take, book, okasha, undoubtedly, einstein, test, relativity, solar, eclipse, author, proposed, famous, idea, paradigm, shift, pick, their, lifetime, period, relatively, early, recommend, aforesaid, structure, revolutions, thomas, falsifiability, karl, short, introduction, figures, forming, associated, forces, within, scope, collaborative, effort, improve, coverage, support, visit, details, how, join, does, require, rating, scale, following, wikiprojects, assessment, carchasm, encyclopedia, projects, printable, download, pdf, print, export, switch, legacy, parser, shortened, url, information, permanent, link, links, actions, english, supported, top, personal, recent, community, learn, contribute, current, events, jump,

Text of the page (random words):
template talk philosophy of science wikipedia jump to content main menu main menu move to sidebar hide navigation main page contents current events random article about wikipedia contact us contribute help learn to edit community portal recent changes upload file special pages search search appearance donate create account log in personal tools donate create account log in contents move to sidebar hide top 1 about founders of philosophy of science 2 comments 2 wp brd no basis in wp rs for a separate founders section 3 comments 3 adolf grunbaum 1 comment 4 natural philosophy vs philosophy of science 1 comment toggle the table of contents template talk philosophy of science add languages page contents not supported in other languages add topic template talk english read edit view history tools tools move to sidebar hide actions read edit add topic view history general what links here related changes upload file permanent link page information get shortened url switch to legacy parser print export download as pdf printable version in other projects appearance move to sidebar hide from wikipedia the free encyclopedia latest comment 3 years ago by carchasm in topic natural philosophy vs philosophy of science this template does not require a rating on wikipedia s content assessment scale it is of interest to the following wikiprojects philosophy epistemology science philosophy portal this template 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 philosophy wikipedia wikiproject philosophy template wikiproject philosophy philosophy associated task forces epistemology philosophy of science about founders of philosophy of science edit latest comment 12 years ago 2 comments 1 person in discussion or say main figures in the forming of philosophy of science presearch well as a non expert i don t quite know many good review books chapters on philosophy of science but out of 20 modern philosophers there must be a few that is leading and influential in the field of philosophy of science take this book philosophy of science a very short introduction by okasha as example karl popper is undoubtedly a founder of modern philosophy of science and he made einstein s test of general relativity on the solar eclipse a very good example of falsifiability and thomas kuhn author of the structure of scientific revolutions proposed the famous idea of paradigm shift i mean there must be a few that we should pick out as founders their lifetime period being relatively early and recommend them to the readers like these two aforesaid the other reason that makes me do the edits is why the philosophers are sorted by first name what s the significance of it and even it be fixed by last name is a random name list of greco medieval logical pyschoanalytical philosophers very reader friendly yeah here s the other thing i don t know who included so many philosophers and i m really curious about why they re here i didn t delete any though anyway so far my opinion is still to sort them by era and in modern by importance just like in philosophers of science szmithrandir talk 17 00 18 january 2014 utc reply yes sorting by era seems like a more objective criterion that would be less likely to reflect pov and i agree first name sorting seems strange with regard to founders the names you mention popper and kuhn are certainly widely cited and commonly regarded in some way as classics though i notice you called popper a founder of modern philosophy of science rather than of philosophy of science in general which some might argue is an important distinction that should not be oversimplified on a template generally this type of category and naming issue is worked out on a main article related to the template but in this case it seems that the main philosophy of science article is not terribly helpful at least in terms of founders that is there are a few whose names are mentioned in text but i don t see them put into any special descriptive category your approach of turning to a textbook strikes me as a valid beginning but the next step would be to create paragraph or two in an article that attempts to identify founders and cites more than a single source after such a paragraph seems fairly stable and solidly sourced then perhaps its categories could be uploaded so to speak to a template but remember that those looking at the template can still click on the main article if they want to find particular thinkers who are implicitly recommended by being more often mentioned in text for now it strikes me that chronology is perhaps the main category that appears in the philosophy of science page indeed the philosophers are sorted that way in bullet points so it strikes me as a reasonably solid non pov sorting that could be done to the template so in this line of thinking much of your work can indeed be retrieved resuscitated minus the founders category also beware of miscategorizing spencer regards presearch talk gregbard well i have to say that the version you ve just made is not very navigable in fact almost illegible indeed philosophy of is a phrase indicating subfield and it is a long phrase a navibox shouldn t include such a bulky list in fact in the chinese version that i ve also recently edited there is one hlist dedicated to these philosophies of math phys chem bio etc secondly in re of sorting the philosophers please comment based on the discussion above i really spent some time went over all these philosophers and unfortunately found no sorting groups among the moderns and i believe many reader would favour a list that indicates basic chronologies thirdly thanks for your attention i ve just noticed the issues of the lower rows the concepts metatheories and related they re weasel indeed i admit but still any navibox list of more than 20 or 30 is nothing but merely hallucinator maybe not that bad for readers who are familiar with the topic and are actually able to locate the word by the alphabetical order which is a tiny minority editing these kind of template is really challenging for me if anyone is a true expert s he is very honoured to stand forth and lead one thing for sure this template has to be fixed szmithrandir talk 01 20 20 january 2014 utc reply wp brd no basis in wp rs for a separate founders section edit latest comment 12 years ago 3 comments 3 people in discussion user szmithrandir wants to create a separate founders section for philosophers of science that in his view qualify as founders as already noted above in order for this section to be anything but the user szm s pov he she must show that there is a basis among wp rs for such a section there is no such section on the page philosophy of science so any attempt to include a founders section on this template is simply pov if user szm tries to create a founders section on philosophy of science that might be a step towards justifying such a section on this template but for such a section to be balanced it should have multiple reliable references and reflect a consensus of those sources so it cannot be hastily used to justify a founders section on this template it must be allowed to mature and stabilize and alow time for input from multiple editors i eliminated the templates unjustified founders section but user szm restored it in a reversion i found his accompanying change log incoherent and incomprehensible therefore i will now revert to pov free version using wp brd user szm is should now leave the page free of those changes until resoultion on this talk page or he she will risk administrative action due to edit warring presearch talk 01 40 3 february 2014 utc reply presearch yeah sorry about replying late i actually misunderstood your previous comment now i see what you really mean last time see above when you said but the next step would be to create paragraph or two in an article that attempts to identify founders and cites more than a single source then perhaps its categories could be uploaded so to speak to a template i didn t capture your intention so i agree with this principle i ll get some time to work on philosophy of science hold on they don t even have a history of philosophy of science section oh that s gonna be challenging maybe i ll start with amending philosphers of science section szmithrandir talk 05 33 5 february 2014 utc reply i have been working on the philosophy of science article and i just added a brief history section you could add to if that s helpful at all i don t think the article should have an indiscriminate list of philosophers of science at the end wp also so i m trying to phase that out any help you could offer would be much appreciated this important topic is long overdue for a good article hugetim talk 18 43 16 february 2014 utc reply adolf grunbaum edit latest comment 12 years ago 1 comment 1 person in discussion i have add adolf grunbaum few monts ago and i believe that he is important to be part of this template i think that it is appropriate to have on list more contemporary philosophers because it enables navigation through latest views in philosophy of science and every other area of philosophy what can be of great interest for the reader i propose several criteria for philosopher to be included in template to publish widely on philosophy of science but not only in some very narrow sub field to generate wide critical attention not only reviews of books what is standard but also articles dissertations and monographs and to win some prestigious award for his work in the philosophy of science like lakatos award or carl hempel award i believe that hilary putnam should be included in the template in last half century he published dozens of articles in different areas of philosophy of science from philosophy of time in the crossroad of philosophy of science and metaphysics to intersection of quantum physics and philosophy scientific realism etc vojvodae please be free to write 13 41 14 july 2014 utc reply natural philosophy vs philosophy of science edit latest comment 3 years ago 1 comment 1 person in discussion there seems to have been some confusion about what philosophy of science is which is not the same as the parts of philosophy we now call science i ve removed much that seems to have been added to this template under that confusion of terms car chasm talk 04 39 19 february 2023 utc reply retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title template_talk philosophy_of_science oldid 1234886235 categories template class philosophy pages na importance philosophy pages template class epistemology pages na importance epistemology pages epistemology task force articles template class philosophy of science pages na importance philosophy of science pages philosophy of science task force articles this page was last edited on 16 july 2024 at 17 01 utc page was rendered with parsoid text is available under the creative commons attribution sharealike 4 0 license additional terms may apply by using this site you agree to the terms of use and privacy policy wikipedia is a registered trademark of the wikimedia foundation inc a non profit organization privacy policy about wikipedia disclaimers contact wikipedia legal safety contacts code of conduct developers statistics cookie statement mobile view search search toggle the table of contents template talk philosophy of science add topic