Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychophysical Paradox

Add links
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 was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychophysical Paradox[edit]

Psychophysical Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Apparently little-used term: original research? Of the 9 Google hits [1], four are from Wikipedia itself, and three appear to use the phrase to mean something other than the subject of the article. In addition, at least one of the references given seems to be related to something else entirely, with the only similarity being the use of the word "psychophysical", another is an ArXiv preprint, and a third is behind a paywall, and thus not easily reviewed. The remaining reference (Klein) does appear to be about the general topic of psychophysics and mind-body duality, but does not use the word "psychophysical" anywhere. The Anome (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be a few articles mentioning this phenomenon. So maybe just a couple of references should be made in this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, this is THE highest exception. the Psychophysical Paradox is of such an overwhelmingly fundamental, historical, scientific, philosophic, even theologic significance and importance and value, and since it pertains to the VERY BASICS of our understanding (or lack, thereof) of ourselves and the "World" - that I was amazed that the article did not exist at all, for which reason I created it! --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please help me with placing a request for more references, such as - "This References and Citations section is only a stub (or is incomplete etc) You can help by expanding it". I prefer this - to the Military-like message of "This article has failed in providing References and Citations, and shall, thus, be Court-Marshalled and Executed by a Firing-Squad". in other words, I am looking for a template that requests expansion, rather than one that points to its abscence. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequate, and an essay. This is one of the basic question of epistemology and covered elsewhere. Whether this particular term is standard enough to be used I do not know, but if so, we can do much better than this, actually basing an article on sources in a verifiable manner. DGG (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rest my case! First, your false claim that "This is one of the basic question of epistemology and" - describes beatifully the fundamental importance and significance of the unresolved problem, but it is false since the subject encompasses much more than epistemology. Second, quoting your "in a verifiable manner" - demonstrates beatifully your complete miscomprehension of the problem. Who are "you"? What is "you"? What makes "you" "capable" of "Verifiable"? What is "Verifiable"? Can "you" "prove" that anything is "Verifiable"? What is the "relation" of the "Verifiable" of "you" - to the "real-world"? Who is this clown entity? I suggest that he (she) be "Deleted" from this discussion ! --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two articles linked in the "further reading" section do not mention "Psychophysical Paradox" as a term. Mind-body dichotomy is already covered. And it just doesn't seem too terribly paradoxical. We have lots of sciences about concepts we do not actually understand and cannot point to, so I doubt this would be a promulgated term. Concepts like this are attributable to specific inherently notable authors. No effort was made to do so here, further suggesting it's not a notable concept. -Verdatum (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are unfamiliar with the term, it does not necessarily imply that it is wrong, or that it does not exist, or that there is a better term. It may actually imply that you are a complete ignorant about this subject. I claim that I know better. This "trigger-happy" approach to article deletion is questionable, in the sense that "Donald Duck" can vote to delete an article by Albert Einstein. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After I have received some useful explanations about Stub-Categories, courtesy of Marcel Douwe Dekker, I suggest that you organize the categories in a manner that seems appropriate to you. The Contents of the Article is of far greater importance than its categorization. So, please Categorize as seems appropriate, and let's finish with this Deletion stuff. Thanks,--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A term that does not seem to be common in the literature, and, one that could easily be confused with Psychophysics which psychologists have been studying since the 1870s. The article reads like an essay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It escapes me why you have decided that it could easily be confused with Psychophysics which psychologists have been studying since the 1870s. The confusion is yours! These terms are inherently related. One, is from the point of view of Philosophy, while the other is from the point of view of Physics. Hence, the term - "Psych-o-Physical"! They refer to the same multidisciplinary problem! That goes to solidify my case. On the other hand - I would be happy to get some advice and tips about the diffrences between an Article, and an Essay - so that I know what to avoid. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Since you have mentioned the article - Psychophysics, I wanted to add it to the "See also" section of my article. Unfortunately, I have discovered (as expected) that the author(s) of that article had addressed the issue from the viewpoint of Psychology only! Obviously, confined to their discipline, they have failed to realize the much more vast, broader, wider and comprehensive nature of this subject, which encompassing, or is implicated in, a multitude of Scientific Disciplines, particularly (but not limited to) Physics. Isn't it obvious that Psychophysics, or Psych-o-Physics - has something to do with Physics? That article needs some urgent corrections, before it can assumes its full, broad spectrum and perspective. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't forget those movies where there's a mad scientist doing "psycho-physics"Edison (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help in Choosing the Best, of The 63,800 "Verifiable" Reference Books and Papers on the Psychophysical Paradox (or Problem or Debate)

  • I would appreciate your help in choosing the most valuable, notable or prominent of these books to be used as references to my article.
  • Note: The above search includes books only! If you want to consider including Journal-Papers, as references or citations candidates, , please use this Google-Scholar-Search [3] for the total of 63,800 books and papers, which qualify as "Verifiable" References to this article.
  • Please paste your contributions in my Talk-Page.
  • Please do not remove the lines above and below, which separate this section.

Thanks,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • and, here are the google scholar results http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Psychophysical+paradox%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 2 articles, one of which is about neuroscience, so again I am pretty sure that is the same way psychologists use the term psychophysics. This is a non notable term, plain and simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neuroscience? Excellent, Bring this reference on! Would there be "You" without Neurons in your brain? as regards Psychology, what, the hell, does this have to do with it? Perhaps you meant Psychiatry? See my previous comment above. Again, have you understood anything at all, regarding what this article is about? --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be civil. Psychology studies psychophysics. Psychology also studies neurons. The term 'psychphysical paradox' is not notable. It shows up in two articles and three books (on google anyway).Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Mind-body dichotomy. The article does not add much to the merger target that is referenced. The article title does not appear to be widely used to describe its subject. Edison (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pseudo-science. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this article seems to make any sense. Lack of verifiability. Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychophysical_Paradox&oldid=1144165736"