10

The tagline for this SE is "For those interested in logical reasoning".

Could we come up with a better one, or is the current one ideal?

TFD defines philosophy as "The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning."

According to that definition, logical reasoning is surely the basis, but not the actual study.

From what I have read on this site, there are many people here who likely have good alternate suggestions, or to explain why the current tagline is ideal.

  • 5
    This has actually been a long running issue :) I will try to gather together some of the previous discussion around it – Joseph Weissman Dec 19 '15 at 15:36
  • Agree @JosephWeissman there was some good thinking back in 2012 that wasn't taken up. Hope the option for update exists !! Have proposed something as a new starting point. Here's hoping :) – sourcepov Dec 20 '15 at 4:27
  • 1
    This is something that I had been thinking of bringing up for a long time. Definitely think that it should be up for revision. – Sampark Sharma Dec 20 '15 at 11:43
  • It's interesting... based on the tagline, I delayed in joining this SE, because that tagline does not match my definition of philosophy. I figured it was a place for people with a different definition of philosophy. (I discovered the opposite on the Mi Yodeya SE, where the tagline seemed reasonable, but my contribution was immediately censored.) I'm glad my Meta post has received a warm welcome, because the responses by others indicate that this is likely another SE that I will find valuable. – RockPaperLizard Dec 21 '15 at 5:24
  • @JosephWeissman I don't spend enough time on meta to know how this works exactly, but wouldn't this be appropriate to put to a vote? I'll supply one more alternative, if all we need are a few good options. – Ryder Dec 25 '15 at 3:54
  • I like how this meta QA is going... good ideas coming in from all over, each with their advantages. – RockPaperLizard Dec 26 '15 at 9:37
3

I read answers on the older post, and there were some good ones. To generate interest for a reasonably broad base of participants, I'd keep the site description lighter, using modern phrasing that still covers all the bases. Also think it needs to be concise.

How about:

A community exploring questions on the nature of thought, including topics of knowledge, logic, and ethics.

Use of "including" leaves room at the edges, but goes on to establish the major pillars for target content. Adding "academic" before community would fit, but I left it out of my proposal, as it may be too restrictive.

  • .. and, we don't use the word 'philosophy' in the definition :) .. if there's traction, maybe we focus on the 3-5 topic "pillars" that go at the end? – sourcepov Dec 20 '15 at 4:36
  • 1
    I guess what I don't like about that is that it encourages a misunderstanding. I think we do want to use the word philosophy in the tagline. See for instance, Math.SE "Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required. " I would say one of our biggest problems is people who don't grasp the scope of philosophy. – virmaior Dec 20 '15 at 5:40
  • 2
    For some reason, I'd really like to see the words 'epistemology' and 'metaphysics' used in the tagline. – Sampark Sharma Dec 20 '15 at 11:48
  • Good inputs. Certainly easy to update, adding content pillars in the list at the end. Like 'philosophy', 'metaphysics' may cut a broader swath, maybe that could be moved up, e.g., "A community exploring questions on philosophy, classic metaphysics and the nature of thought, including topics of knowledge, epistemology, logic & ethics." Can move around the building blocks, but it seems this structure could work. – sourcepov Dec 20 '15 at 16:12
3

I've a simpler suggestion, in line with most other SE's.

Q&A for topics in Philosophy and its subdivisions.

The intent should not be to tell people what we don't answer, but what we do. Listing topics always seems to implicate the former, so I would purposefully leave the scope vague. By including "subdivisions", we can hint at our being focused on known or current topics in philosophy, without committing ourselves to the exclusive treatment of academic endeavors.

Anyway it's just the bottle I'm putting out for this particular ring toss. I'd like to see a vote and get this fixed. Weissman's collection of previous questions in the comments is reason enough, for me.

  • 1
    I think this is too general. The tagline should give me information that I can't find in the title of the site. – user2953 Dec 25 '15 at 15:54
2

My proposal is

For questions on philosophical texts and terms as well as logical reasoning.

I think the main disease of this site is that people think they can ask every question about what they conceive as thoughtful, no matter how trivial it is. Limiting it on logic and written texts will promote answerable questions and exclude these "What do you think about this (experimental) thought?"-type questions.

  • 1
    I think this is too general. The tagline should give me information that I can't find in the title of the site. Also, it invites too much for questions about terminology that we actually don't want here (it's one of our close reasons). – user2953 Dec 30 '15 at 18:29
1

Another suggestion, also following the usual SE-format:

Q&A on philosophy for academics, students and amateurs

To me, 'philosophy' is suitably vague and I don't see the point of mentioning particular subfields in a tagline. However, the list of audience types indicates that the site is suitable for people coming from different backgrounds, as long as they format their posts to fit the Q/A format.

  • 1
    Are there no professional non-academic philosophers? ;-) – RockPaperLizard Dec 26 '15 at 2:13
  • "...for academics (paid & unpaid), professionals, students and amateurs"? ;) @RockPaperLizard – fileunderwater Dec 26 '15 at 9:23
-1

It would seem the site prefers that the discussions generally involve existing thought and historic philosophical information - it has been explained to me that this is not a place to do philosophy, but to find out/understand about existing philosophic thought.

I don't have a specific answer for the tagline, but the general comment that the other suggestions should be modified to include this concept.

For example:

Q&A on historical and modern philosophical thought for academics, students, and amateurs

By building off of fileunderwater's suggestion.

  • 2
    This invites primarily opinion based posts. – user2953 Dec 28 '15 at 22:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .