1

The description for the philosophy Stack Exchange site, in the list of Stack Exchange sites (the one accessible via the 'Stack Exchange MultiCollider SuperDropdown' button in the top-bar) reads:

For those interested in logical reasoning

I wonder whether this is appropriate.

It seems to me that there is a difference between philosophy and 'logical reasoning'. If this is the case, then there is also a difference between being interested in philosophy and being interested in 'logical reasoning'.

It would appear then that the description for this site may be misleading users (especially new or prospective users who are unfamiliar with this particular Stack Exchange site) and possibly deterring them from contributing.

Is the description innapropriate?

Morevoer, I wonder whether the phrase 'logical reasoning' isn't something like the phrase 'wet water'.

| | | | | |
  • There we go! Well done. – Dan Bron Jan 28 '16 at 14:26
  • @Dan Bron hardly necessary, is it? I don't think gloating fits in to the SE nazi style guide does it? – M. le Fou Jan 28 '16 at 14:28
  • I wasn't gloating. I was actually congratulating you for doing the right thing. You'd be surprised by how rare that is in Meta.SE disputes. (And you might want to edit out the Germany reference in your comment; the people on this site have never met you before.) – Dan Bron Jan 28 '16 at 14:29
  • @Dan Bron Well you do realize that it is quite obvious to everyone who reads 'There we go! Well done' that it is sarcastic and contributes exactly nothing neither to this nor any other question on SE? Edit: And what is the comment about having met me supposed to mean? Look I appreciate that you are frustrated with this site and perhaps in particular with the way that I use it, but I would appreciate it if you abstained from commenting with naught but sarcasm on my questions. – M. le Fou Jan 28 '16 at 14:31
  • I can't imagine anyone reading "well done" under your question seeing it as anything but congratulatory (because it was nothing but congratulatory), but hey, it's your chip, you can keep it on your shoulder if you want. I'll be interested in the responses to your proposal. – Dan Bron Jan 28 '16 at 14:33
  • Response to further edit: I think you misread me. I am not at all frustrated. The comment about having "met you" is that the members of Meta.Philosophy will for the most part not have seen your question on Meta.se, and therefore will have no context for your uh -- passionate -- responses, and are likely to take a dim view of your use of "nazi", which may in turn color their responses to your question, which otherwise might have been dispassionate or objective. In other words, that word (and in general your responses in this exchange) may damage the chances your proposal be adopted. – Dan Bron Jan 28 '16 at 14:44
  • fair enough if it's duplicate... but can we change the text to something more meaningful? – James Kingsbery Feb 2 '16 at 18:11
2

It's a good question, that's come up a few times:

We probably should change it though - it is inaccurate for lots of reasons, as summarized in the earlier questions.

| | | | | |

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