Talk:Teleology

Discuss OR tag

User:Carchasm - in April 2022, an OR tag was added with this edit

Noting TALK has no comment and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about the concern, I have put in this section per the tag template where it says "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."

I'm thinking that if the concern hasn't gotten any involvement, then it might as well be removed, but wanted to try this first.

Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment "it would be difficult to name a single predicate in this article that originated from a reliable source".

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, the "History" and "Modern philosophy" sections only cite primary sources, which especially in the case of Plato and Aristotle can't possibly be sufficient, given that "teleology" as a discipline is a later notion.

A number of the other claims appear to cite primary sources as well, and although I'm less familiar with economics, it seems that even the connection of this metaphysical topic to an entire other field of study should rely on more direct attributions of sources.

I would also remind you that "no work being done" is not a reason to remove a tag. And in this case I believe the tag is still unquestionably valid given the state of the History section, so it shouldn't be removed. - car chasm (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Carchasm - thanks for the reply. I think your are right -- while a link to the work being talked about is nice, and what the article says about them may be right, supporting what the article says about the works needs a cite to third party commentator. I'll try a bit, caveat I'll try to find what is usually said per WEIGHT and what is here might not have any supports online. And that my take on this is slightly different than the article -- I see it as talk about physics, at least at root that motions and changes proceed towards some endpoint. (stones fall to earth, acrons grow into oaks) and Aristotle was trying to explain how things change, and that folks still expllain things by reference to their purpose. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss LEAD REWRITE tag ?

User:Carchasm - in August 2022, a LEAD REWRITE tag was added by this edit with the edit comment "lead should be rewritten to follow MOS and be more accessible".

Noting TALK has no section for discussion and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about where it differs from MOS or accessibility, I have put in this section. The template does not explicitly call for it and so the WP:WTRMT guide about when to remove a tag does not explicitly say this is cause for removal, but it does look like a lack of edits and/or talk page discussion.

Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment, perhaps suggested content or detailing critiques of specific locations with reasoning.

I think obviously the lead could be rewritten --and will offer the below from a google then looking at Britanica or wikis or Stanford, and trying to keep content focused about the philosophy aspects -- but with such a randomly crafted alternative I have no idea if it is addressing whatever concern and I tail off is anything to say towards the bottom.

• Teleology (from the Greek word telos meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. It is one of Aristotle's descriptions of four causes of a thing or event. A teleology holds that there is a final cause or purpose coming either from within, an intrinsic finality or from outside, an extrinsic finality. It is traditionally contrasted with philosophical naturalism, which views nature as lacking design or purpose.

Historically, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the Scholasticism tradition in philosophy. It's rationale was explored in detail by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement.

In theology, a teleological argument for the existence of God was used in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his best known work Summa Theologica, in the 18th century by William Paley in his text on natural theology and watchmaker analogy. In bioethics, teleology is used to describe a utilitarian view that an action's ethical right or wrong is based on the balance of good or bad consequences. In psychology, teleology is used to describe where psychological norms are dependent on at least in part on functional norms.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

you really don't need to ping me about this, you've been here a while, so I assume you are competent and capable of reading the MOS and determining for yourself what was wrong, as per your statement that "...I think obviously the lead could be rewritten...."

I tag articles that appear to me to have issues, so that improvements can be made to them. If you make improvements, and you believe the issues are no longer valid, you may remove the tag. - car chasm (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Carchasm - Not me, at least not much. To clarify, by "obviously the lead could be rewritten" I meant only there were many ways to phrase things and choices of what to say and illustrated with a plausible but fairly different one. I might skip out on doing a full rewrite though, and go more for cutting any bits not further supported by the article body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Carchasm - I have made those cuts to the lead, please examine and see if you agree that LEAD REWRITE tag should now be removed.

• rephrased first line to start with saying it as a branch of Causality in philosophy (versus as a form of phrasing) and remove odd/long "which serves as" phrasing in the line
• moved into a See Also the one-line para mentioning Kant (as UNDUE or not enough of article content to justify lead mention per WP:LEAD)
• moved into the Science section the para mentioning current debate on use - there is summary note of it in the second para, no need for detail in lead.

Those seem enough to consider as providing the requested lead rewrite -- I'm not getting into non-lead items as those would be different threads, e.g.

• "History" section seems deficient - Aristotle should be less a quotefarm and get mention teleology as one of the Four causes, then History should also mention some other history

such as Thomas Aquinas use in the fith of his Five Ways (Aquinas) to prove the existence of God, Sir Francis Bacon counter in Novum Organum, René Descartes in Mechanism (philosophy), Immanuel Kant and Kant's teleology, etc...

• "Modern Philosophy" tagged for expansion seems to need a cut instead as it is not philosophy, but just a oneline WP:OR editorial remark about creationists that seems misplaced in this article (and telos "end" is not the same as design "mechanism")

But again those are not part of this thread topic so for now do you think the lead rewrite tag to be removed ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Having no reply to the contrary, I will remove the tag. Markbassett (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Economics section needs rewrite

This section is wholly devoted to Ludwig von Mises (and his controversial "science" of praxeology), whose historical figure is not specified (Austrian, libertarian, right wing, heterodox, etc. could all be used). It also omits any discussion of Marx's historical materialism, which drew on Hegel's teleological philosophy of history and has been of far broader historical consequence than Mises. It finishes with external links to articles on a wiki devoted to Mises. 104.57.64.23 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Deontology

Why is deontology even part of this article? Deontology is not a teleological ethical theory. Captchacatcher (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Polemic morass

Refer to the Teleological argument section (contributed by @Quercus solaris): is "polemic morass" a term of art in cosmology or ontology? A cosmological/ontological sense isn't obvious, so an indication of what it means here would be helpful. Is the proposition that the "... chief instance, and the largest polemic morass, of teleological viewpoint in modern cosmology and ontology is the teleological argument that posits an intelligent designer as a god" verifiable? Without a reference, it looks like original research. Can anyone help, please? --- Frans Fowler (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording is a simple sum of parts, an adjective describing a noun: the area of teleology most subject to polemicism is the question of whether any intelligent designer exists and how humans satisfy themselves epistemologically that they either (believe that they) know or (believe that they) don't know which answer to that question is true. This isn't any kind of research at all, let alone original research; on the contrary, it is WP:BLUE. To falsify it, one would need to point to an aspect of teleology that is more contentious than it: subject to greater polemics. There isn't one. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)