Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errors in Syllogisms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Syllogisms. Mailer Diablo 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Errors in Syllogisms
Prodded a second time by a brand new user. Taking it to AfD for him as a courtesy. 2nd prod text was "this needs to be redone from scratch, including the theories of mental models and the history of psychological research Jon.baron 12:35, 2 May 2006". On my talk page user said in part: "I will propose it for deletion agian ... it does not begin to do justice to the topic. It does not discuss the reasons for errors, the different theories of why they happen, and the example it gives is poor. ... If you really want to know about errors in syllogisms, read the chapter on them in Thinking and Deciding. I do not have time to write an entry based on that." Apparently, User:Jon.baron is the author of "Thinking and Deciding".
- Keep Awfulness of article and insufficient coverage of the topic are not criteria for deletion on Wikipedia. If it's bad - let's expand it. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Prof. Baron here, in his extreme awesomeness, had his students create wikipedia articles about psych concepts as homework. I think that is officially awesome. Do we have a barnstar for that, anyone? :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge anything worth retaining at logical fallacy, which itself could stand some expansion. Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Smerdis is right. I am reasonably sure that syllogistic errors were in the logical fallacies list originally but I can't easily find them after the refactoring that seems to have gone on recently (which is, incidentally, generally for the better). Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, we have a small stub, essentially a list, at syllogistic fallacy as well. This perhaps could be profitably merged (or re-merged) into "logical fallacy" as well. I rather like the notion of introducing some kind of intro on cognitive bias into the logical fallacy article as well, though I tend to think that extensive discussion of psychology would be a sidetrack. Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Smerdis, or alternatively to Syllogism, which has a section Validity. LambiamTalk 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- These are all fine ideas, but the original intent of this page was about the psychology of syllogistic reasoning. That has nothing to do with the topics just listed. (BTW, I have edited the quote from what I thought was a personal email. I will certainly watch what I say in the future.) "Logical fallcies" are a different sort of thing. The theory of interest her is that of Philip Johnson-Laird, and the alternatives to his theory, and older theories such as those of Woodworth and Sells, Chapman and Chapman, Henle, etc. And I am not a "brand new user." This is just the first time I tried to delete anything. I have now tried to fix up the page so that it isn't so misleading and so that it points to what else is needed, so it is OK with me to leave it. It is still insufficient, but it isn't wrong. Jon.baron 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just wanted to weigh in here about this page. I suspect I'm not entirely privy to all the details about the project that apparently led to its creation, or about your research into the psychology of syllogistic reasoning. Let me extend a personal welcome, even if you aren't a new contributor, and say I'm fairly sure I can speak for the consensus of the contributors that we are glad to have an expert on board who has researched this stuff.
My suggesting that the page be merged or redirected to logical fallacy was suggested almost entirely by the title. The current title does suggest that it is about formal mistakes and invalid syllogisms. I'd now suggest that the page be moved to a title like Psychology of syllogistic reasoning, or better yet, to a page such as Psychology and logic, under which all the various sorts of interplay between psychology and logic could be handled, at least until one or another grows to the point where it should be spun off. Back when I was an undergraduate, I wrote about Schopenhauer, and I would definitely be interested in a page about the psychology of logic and of logical errors. Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just wanted to weigh in here about this page. I suspect I'm not entirely privy to all the details about the project that apparently led to its creation, or about your research into the psychology of syllogistic reasoning. Let me extend a personal welcome, even if you aren't a new contributor, and say I'm fairly sure I can speak for the consensus of the contributors that we are glad to have an expert on board who has researched this stuff.
- Merge to syllogism. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Guy Runcorn 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
