Talk:William of Ockham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event mentioned in this article is a May 26 selected anniversary.

I have a recollection that Ockham is somehow associated with the paradox that if one goes half the distance to the goal, and then half the distance again, and again and again, one will never get to the goal. Can anyone either confirm of disabuse me of this notion?

That was Zeno of Elea. -- Heron 09:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am taking out the statement that Ockham was devoted to a life of "minimalism", since this is a post-modern term and didn't really exist in the Medieval context. Perhaps the person who originally called Ockham a minimalist meant "ascetic?" All Franciscans would be ascetics on principle. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

While "minimalism" may be a post-modern term, the concept is hardly out of place in the context of the Franciscan poverty controversy. After all, the usus pauper (literally "poor use," but perhaps better translated as "minimal use") controversy -- which was devoted to the issue of whether Franciscans were obliged to only a legal renunciation of ownership, or to make do with a "poor use" of goods (quantitatively and qualitatively) as well -- was an important factor in the clash between John XXII and the so-called Spirituals. (Later John XXII widened his attack and brought the whole Franciscan doctrine of poverty under fire.) At any rate, "asceticism" does not capture the Franciscan devotion to a poor life, which (in theory at least) was certainly more "minimal" than any other Christian profession of voluntary poverty. --24.175.70.90 04:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Source for Occam quote

I would be interested to know the source for the quote “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”Andrew K Robinson 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for statement about Eco

Is the idea that Ockham might be the basis for "In the Name of the Rose" original research, or is there some interview or other statement by Eco that this was his inspiration for his character? Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See eg [1]; [2]; [3];

>>> About the Eco reference in "The Name of the Rose": Eco wrote himself in his "Nachschrift zur Name der Rose" (I am referring to the German translation) that he needed a detective for his novel, "preferably an Englishman". He then states that this is an "intertextual reference". This suggests that the actual inspiration for William of Baskerville was probably Sherlock Holmes. However, thinkers like William of Baskerville would have only existed after Roger Bacon and William of Ockham, and this point determined the chronological setting of the novel (1327). Eco comments that the existence of these two men made him have to set the novel a couple of centuries later than he would have liked.

- Brian

I think that the text of this article is a little misleading on this point. Though Eco may have been inspired to create a character with some of the features of Ockham, the article as it stands seems to suggest that Baskerville is a fictionalised version of Ockham (a suggestion reinforced by the coincidence between their names). However, since Ockham is actually referred to by the characters in the novel, it's clear he is distinct from Baskerville. Josh Parsons 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact vs. Myth

JA: Since this article has been placed under the aegis of the History of Science, here are some problems that I notice right off with respect to its historical accuracy.

Ockham is considered one of the greatest logicians of all time. One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables.

JA: The first sentence is an example of "peacock phrasing", as further discussed under WP:Weasel. Ockham of course looms large enough to rank as a mythical figure these days, but in the interests of historical accuracy it is all the more necessary to distinguish the things that Ockham actually wrote from the things that are anachronistically attributed to him. The rest of the first paragraph fails to do that.

JA: To some extent we can get by on translations, but it takes a better reader of Latin than I to do an expert job of this, and so I will look up the appropriate tag to place on the article. Jon Awbrey 11:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are circumstances where, for readability, peacock phrasing is at least less bad than the available alternatives - but it needs to be backed by cited facts, which is not the case here. Ockham's razor seems to have been frequently used by Ockham but it was not original to him and only gained its name centuries later. It certainly needs mentioning in the article, but it should also be clear that the myth outruns the fact. And while the next paragraph to some extent explains why modern philosophers and logicians have found Ockham worth studying, it neither says who they are nor why Ockham was intellectually important in his own period. Rewrite required, but I'd need to do some work before I could attempt it. PWilkinson 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surrey?

Are we certain of this. I read (admittedly in some pop philosphy thing I no longer have - Xeno and the Tortoise?) that it wasn't known and could have been an Ockham in Yorkshire.84.9.162.36 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But where is Ockham in Yorkshire ?

Indeed Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' also reports the view that Ockham was born in Ockham in Yorkshire, and this view can also be seen by googling on 'Ockham Yorkshire'. BUT a key question here is where Ockham in Yorkshire is ? Does anybody know ? It does not seem to appear on any maps, nor in the Domesday Book. Logicus 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Templates

JA: Citation templates are not mandated by WP, are not universally agreed to, and many editors strongly object to their use, especially for bibliographies with complex publication histories, because they lead to the loss of data and are hard to maintain. WP guidelines advise against trying to convert citation formats without first discussing the proposal with other editors interested in the arrticle. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the tip. I thought I was helping. Since we have started the discussion now: what about converting these reference to use the proper templates? Thruston 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: Any standard style sheet is acceptable for references, so long as a consistent style is maintained across the article. In the literatures that I know, footnotes are used for incidental notes, not references, sources are cited in text as (Source, Date, Page) with Date being optional if there is only one work by Source in the References. The list of references is kept in alphabetical order. This is simple enough to maintain by hand and doesn't really require any automation, but templates have become the pet projects of a couple of groups — so far they are making it more work, not less, to maintain accurate and consistent references, and their rigid formats lead to the loss of citation data over time. This is not a good thing. There is more information about the various options at WP:CITE. Jon Awbrey 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in :) - the cite templates are really not setup to accomodate the complex publishing history of the cites on this page - and their use is not required - they are mostly for us lazy folk who don't want to remember how to punctuate the cite (was that a comma or a period between the author and the title - and what citation system is wikipedia using - crap I have to look it up again). --Trödel 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA Nom Encouraged

Dear Friends: If you are interested, this article is near to Good article status. All that is needed would be inline citation of sources and a little work to bring the lead up to WP:LEAD standards. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Rewrite

I arrived on this page randomly, and was somewhat disturbed by what I found. Much of the section detailing Ockham's life was unsourced speculation, items where historians disagree, or worse. I have rewritten the section using four major sources, which have been referenced on the main page, including works by two doctorate-level, tenured professors. Any information that was in the previous versions that I could not find reliable sources for was removed, but I'll be happy to slide it back into the text if it can be properly verified. Consequentially 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name spellings

His name is spelt differently in this article and the one on his Razor. Both use their version of the spelling for the purposes of the link to the other site, which is different to the spelling used oin that page. Any chance of someone rectifing whioch is correct and/or changing them both to say the same? Larklight 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of death uncertain?

In his novel , 'Eifelheim', SF writer Michael Flynn includes William Of Ockham as a minor character. In a 'Historical Note' appended to the novel he states, while speaking about the historical William of Ockham:

"He was last heard from when he left Munich on 10 March 1349 to make his peace with the Pope. 'Eifelheim' stands along one likely route. The date on his Denkmal in Munich is incorrect, as we know from documents that he was alive after that point."

Being a note at the end of a work of fiction, this statement is not supported by a citation. Also, things claiming to be 'fact' in novels often are not. Stil, is it possible for anyone with the right expertise to look into the matter of Ockham's death and confirm whether there is, in fact, any ambiguity about it? If the facts mentioned in the entry at wikipedia are subject to reasonable doubt, that ought to be mentioned, perhps with a simple re-wording of the exiting statement that 'Ockham died (possibly of the plague, or Black Death) on April 9, 1348 in the Franciscan convent in Munich, Bavaria.' If the whole thing is a red herring, sorry for wasting time.

Jayaprakash Satyamurthy 05:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)