Timeline for Should we edit the "on topic" site of the help center?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 13, 2019 at 0:10 | comment | added | Not_Here | If someone asked a question such as "what really are numbers?" and you had an answer that was from a nominalist, and their entire answer is phrased as "Well, numbers aren't real, mathematical statements aren't statements about any real domain. Here's a quote from Field about how we can still make sense of science:" and that could be fine, but when stated so definitively without any mention of alternative views, it gives a skewed perspective to the questioner. It wouldn't require a treatise on the history of phil. of math to expand that answer and explain where that view fits among others. | |
| Jan 13, 2019 at 0:03 | comment | added | Not_Here | @IñakiViggers I agree that if we take a broad view of contextualization, then it would probably result in too long answers. However, the edit suggestion doesn't use the word 'contextualize' or any of its cognates. I am saying that the reasoning behind asking to consider other points of views in an answer is to give a better contextualization of the answer to the person asking the question who might be ignorant of the context of their question within the broader scope of philosophy. It's not a requirement to give a complete, detailed analysis of the context, just to provide at least a modicum. | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 20:28 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking Mod | @IñakiViggers: To be fair, if a good answer (i.e. with contextualisation at least shortly considering the main/all views) makes for too long an answer, the question is too broad. | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Not_Here Thanks for explaining (and Philip for confirming). That makes sense. It's just that sometimes contextualization (which in some cases sounds to me as equivalent to self-identification) will needlessly lengthen an answer, whereas other times it is going to be unclear what type or extent of contextualization will really help. I think the comments to an answer are still the best indicator of what one needs to contextualize (and thus clarify/qualify one's answer). | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 19:14 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking Mod | @Not_Here: This is actually exactly the thought behind the suggestion: By having to consider views different from your opinion, content automatically becomes less opinionated and more constructive as well as valuable for this site up to the point where the post is not opinionated - and thus off-topic and soliciting grudges - at all. It is hard to attack a post that argues from different sides. | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 18:27 | comment | added | Not_Here | Maybe I'm reading too much into the suggestion, but that's why I support this change. I think it's about trying to get answers to be more objective through contextualization which gives the person asking the question a much better ability to understand the situation moving forward. You can be an intuitionist all you want and you can argue in your answer from that perspective (hopefully with quotes and references) but you can't take an obstinate attitude of "it's because this view is right and I don't need to explain why it's right or any other views because they're all obviously incorrect". | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 18:25 | comment | added | Not_Here | @IñakiViggers This is bad because it gives the person asking the question a skewed view of the situation. If the person asking the question is completely unfamiliar with the subject, they might take that answer and think its gospel without getting any sort of contextualization of "well, intuitionism is one view and it thinks this and rejects this, but here are other views and they think this and reject this", it just misses out on the entire context of the background of the question in, I believe, a critical way. It's one thing to write a paper and another to answer a question here. (2/3) | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 18:23 | comment | added | Not_Here | @IñakiViggers to me, this suggestion is about contextualizing an answer to a broader perspective. (This is a real example that's somewhere on the site) Say someone asks something about the philosophy of mathematics and someone writes an answer, and this person is an intuitionist and they write their answer completely from that perspective, presupposing that intuitionism is correct and that anyone who disagrees with intuitionism is a moron. It's exactly like Philip says, they aren't considering any option other than their own because they're already convinced they're correct. (1/3) | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 15:17 | history | edited | Philip KlöckingMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2019 at 13:48 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking Mod | @IñakiViggers: Well my idea behind the formulation is that if you have to consider arguments for and against positions different from your own, this kind of automatically results in constructive posts if taken seriously but also helps with objectivity. In the end, unconstructive and hostile answers and comments are usually linked to there being a person that does not even seriously consider alternative positions, i.e. whose post is one-sided in one way or another. Also, it is hard to imagine any problem, view, or opinion in philosophy where there literally are only two options, i.e. opposites. | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | By "different views" do you mean "opposite to that person's opinion"? Also, getting rid of the premise "express them in a constructive way" is going to unleash more of unwarranted hostility from certain user(s). | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 23:37 | history | answered | Philip KlöckingMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |