Talk:Polylogism

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no sense to me. If a Marxist says that a proletariat and capitalist have different "logics", he's not saying they disagree on Boolean logic, or that they disagree that 1 + 1 = 2. Obviously, it means the people have different ideas or ways of dealing with reality. And it is quite possible for people to hold conflicting ideas, without creating a logical contradiction. Also, if polylogism means to say that two people's viewpoints are equally valid, I don't see how that's a logical "fallacy". In many cases there may be no practical way of showing one viewpoint to be better than the other. Blouge (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think as espoused by Adolf Hitler, it said that "Aryan logic" could never be learned by Jews. So it wasn't just different ideas; it was saying there's some innate unbridgeable communications gap. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a quote or two where Hitler explicitly claimed this. Thank you. Cerberus (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Obviously, it means the people have different ideas or ways of dealing with reality." Why is that obvious? Polylogism, it seems to me, is descriptive of the process of reasoning from one given point in an argument to another. It does not deny that some people have different ideas or live in different practical realities based upon their differing life experiences. If two people begin with identical sets of assumptions, and proceed on a course of logical reasoning, they will likely end up at generally the same conclusions if they are not distracted by incoming biases along the way. Having different ideas or ways of dealing with reality most likely means their sets of opening assumptions are different. So, the claim that there might be different structures of logic seems absurd to me. If the claim were true, how then could two people ever agree on anything if they used different logics to arrive at their positions? Each human being would be communicatively isolated from all others.184.22.160.248 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Lawrence Latham

NPOV

I've marked this article as NPOV, because it just rushes too hastily with the conclusion that polylogism is false, without including any contrary opinions. For example, the objection that

people holding these various "logics" live in the same reality

has been criticized, indirectly, by Kuhn and Feyerabend on the basis of incommensurability. Kuhn remarked in SSR that

At the very least, as a result of discovering oxygen, Lavoisier saw nature differently. And in the absence of some recourse to that hypothetical fixed nature that he "saw differently," the principle of economy will urge us to say that after discovering oxygen Lavoisier worked in a different world.

and Feyerabend in SFS that

For we certainly cannot assume that two incommensurable theories deal with one and the same objective state of affairs (to make the assumption we would have to assume that both at least refer to the same objective situation. But how can we assume that 'they both' refer to the same situation when 'they both' never make sense together?

Such criticism would seem to apply to this objection to polylogism and should be noted.

In addition, I find it strange that the examples used are Marx and the Nazis. Were they really of the belief that "bourgeois logic" /"Jewish logic" and that of their own favored classes were "equally valid" (as the article states)? I'd find it rather surprising. But if not, then they weren't really polylogists. --Jjensenii (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

tags

This article is unsourced, and the only external link is to a partisan source (that is indeed relevant if the article were better). Thing is, this is not a philosphical term generally accepted in discourse: it is a partisan term for Objectivists and Austrian Economics. Yet the article fails to mention any of this..--Cerejota (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I've tried to address this twice now, but partisans are the most active editors. I did not add a clear comment that this is not a term of art, because it is hard to prove a negative. However, you are correct about this. Cerberus (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cerberus that fragment that you included wasn't neutral at all. --Sageo (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the phrase "term of abuse"? It is descriptive: read Mises. Nevertheless, I will not restore it.Cerberus (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the topic should be covered, but context, references, and a more balanced exposition of the facts around it (for example, origin of the term, its usage etc). If none can be found, then perhaps the term doesn't belong on an article of its own.--Cerejota (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at addressing some of the issues with this article -- particularly references. One additional problem I noted was that the paragraph refuting polylogism was copied from [1] (the text was at that site for years prior to this article). This still desperately needs expert attention to address the other questions you raised. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of polylogic

The nazi is an advocate of polylogic with different racial characteristics, the nationalist based on nationality, and the marxist based on class. So Ricardo is condemned by the Nazi because he is jewish, the german nationalist because he is english, and the marxist because he is bourgeois. I'm going to take a crack at introducing more concrete examinations of polylogic because without the concrete, it's a bit difficult to discern what the big deal is about. We should at least be including Dietzgen and his ideas of proletarian logic. TMLutas (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Early communists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) praise of Dietzgen

A Dictionary of Marxist thought states on page 152:

Dietzgen's early writings earned qualified public praise from Marx, who presented him to the Hague Congress of the First International as 'our philosopher'; and from Engels who in Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy credited him with the independent discovery of the materialist dialectic.

Ibid 152-153:

Lenin enlisted Dietzgen in his assault on the empirio-criticists but distinguished between the cosmic excesses of the 'muddleheaded' Dietzgen and the strictly realist contribution of Dietzgen the atheist.

Polylogism as a fallback defense against accusations of relativism

An interesting journal article on why polylogism references seem to come, in the main, from its Austrian School critics: HERMENEUTIC ECONOMICS: BETWEEN RELATIVISM AND PROGRESSIVE POLYLOGISM

A concept is no less notable if it is a label hostilely applied by its critics. Maybe we can mine this to talk about some authors more recent than Mises. TMLutas (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Argument ad hominem is not the same thing as polylogism. Noting that different groups have different levels of scientific understanding is not polylogism. Note that the primary source cited in the article is Mises, who does *not* provide textual support for his claims! (See the section below on Lack of Textual Support.) Cerberus (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing ad hominem about observing that an author is bourgeoise, black, or a jew for that matter. You may want to rethink your point. You accidentally (I hope!) said something quite insulting. TMLutas (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I made three separate points. Each is true. You have addressed none of them. Your "criticism" has nothing to do with my comments. But to elaborate what I had presumed was obvious, Nazi's used argument ad hominem to attack the scientific contributions of Jews. Just because we do not share the Nazi's understanding of what constitutes a negative attribute does not change the fact that their arguments can be classified as ad hominem. And this does not involve polylogism. Cerberus (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Textual Support

Please do not remove from the first paragraph the sentence "However such accusations of polylogism have lacked textual support, so it remains unclear whether the term describes any actual serious body of thought" unless you can show it is erroneous. This is an important qualification to the entry! Cerberus (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the evidence that the statement is even true. So far it smells like original research to me which is why I've been removing it. I'm compromising with a cite tag for now. TMLutas (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This reverses the appropriate burden of proof. It is common knowledge that Mises did not provide textual support for his accusations of polylogism, and that Austrian discussions of polylogism generally cite Mises. There is no "research" involved in acknowledging this, although you are free to confirm it by reading Mises. The first half of the sentence is obviously true. The right way to challenge the second half of this sentence is to provide even one example of a serious school of a thought explicitly asserting normative polylogism. This history of this article shows how hard that is to do. Cerberus (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, common knowledge is not something you can just whip out and win a point. Lots of things that people think are common knowledge are neither common, nor actually true. And this isn't a debating group and you aren't the referee. There are standards in place in Wikipedia and we should be following them. You weren't. You got called on it. It happens to everybody. So cite your position or let it go. TMLutas (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue tags

I think there has been improvement since my comments on neutrality, which in hindsight were not that serious to begin with, compared to these actual issues.

1) Notability - there is not a single non-related source supporting notability, no usage of the term beyond a specific fringe textual production. Wikipedia has long established that fringe ideas belong, if at all, in articles of more widely accepted concepts as part of a wider discussion of the topic. Unless evidence of notability is forthcoming, I think we should merge this article into a more notable related one, such as the Mises bio or some such.

Ok, a little google fu should come up with usage beyond Human Action and Von Mises, no? And there *are relevant usages not limited to a small austrian school circle jerk:

http://bibliofileblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/the-problem-of-polylogism/
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Polylogism.html
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~sofkam/lem/thesis.htm -- here's a good one, from a thesis
Wittgenstein, Praxeology, and Frege's three realms
polylogism in World of Warcraft Yes, I was surprised too.
http://www.thelessonapplied.com/2010/03/26/environmental-polylogism/
pro-polylogism example in science - originally referred in feminist epistemology. That's a winner.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/7231.cfm - conservative polylogism

Feel free to incorporate any or all of these in the article if you think it would take care of the objection. I don't think the objection's valid in the first place but if you want to add more references from a wider circle, that's fine. TMLutas (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

None of these are secondary or tertiary reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, reliable news sources, mainstream or specialist published encyclopedias,etc) so their usage can only be used to support a reference to them in another source. You need to carefully read reliable sourcing rules, and if you already did so, I suggest you ask for clarification from experienced editors in the topic (and a consensus, not the opinion of just one guy). It is clear to me that you do not understand what a reliable source is. A reading of these sources clearly fails the notability criteria for a single article, because they are not reliable sources, but its more ambiguous of the inclusion in some other article. Also some of them are clearly fringe (and that is a thing we don't generally do stand-alone articles).

Ok, you didn't trouble yourself to look through the footnotes on the Wittgenstein paper so here's some more formally reviewed stuff culled from there. Roderick T. Long, “Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises,” Review of Austrian Economics 17, no. 4 (2004), pp. 345-369; as well as Long, Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action: Praxeological Investigations (Routledge, forthcoming 2009). Two should be sufficient to preserve the article though there were a few more "on related issues" in the footnote from the same page that seem to be germane. TMLutas (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In short: there is enough material to include a short paragraph or two on this term's usage, perhaps inside of Austrian School or more appropriately in Ludwig von Mises or some such. It is neither a very important contibution to philosophy, nor the most important and central of Mises' many original contributions to free marketism and right-wing libertarian political philosophy, and unless sources say otherwise, we are giving undue weight to a fringe idea.--Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2) Original research - or particular worry to me are the Dietzgen reference and the I am fairly familiar with Dietzgen scholarship, and "proletarian logic" is not widely understood - in academia - to be an expression of the concept of "polylogism", while indeed a reflection of the monist views of Dietzgen (ie nature of mind-work etc). In addition, it seems some of the other subsections are also tacked on from concepts that are not generally described as "polylogism". Since no references are provided that connected in any notable way the two concepts, that is primafacie original research, and more specifically of original synthesis. Unless these received a significant fixup, am afraid it will have to go.

Let me see if I understand this. you say that the accusation of polylogism is a "reflection of the monist views of Dietzgen". That makes it not original research. Thank you for self-refuting. TMLutas (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You misread me. I am saying the academic consensus is that Dietzgen usage of "proletarian logic" was a result of monism, and polylogism is never discussed outside of fringe Misean primary sources with not secondary or tertiary assertion from reliable sources, it is quite transparently an attempt to troll Marxists on the part of a fringe commentator that gained some traction among a sub-set of a sub-set of an already quite fringe school of thought. To be extra clear, non-Miseans never use, either for or against, the term polylogism to refer to Dietzgen's proletarian logic, at least not to my knowledge. I have not been disabused of this notion by any source provided.

It doesn't prove much but the Dietzgen page doesn't even mention monism. But perhaps that's a problem with the Dietzgen page. So, Dietzgen was a monist and therefore he was not a polylogist? Without original research, could you demonstrate how one follows from the other? TMLutas (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't do it without original research, it cannot be included in wikipedia. Period. "Verifiability, not truth". Wikipedia is not about exploring what is the truth, but about collecting verifiable knowledge. And what is verifiable knowledge is clearly codified in policy and guidelines. We can discuss if a source is reliable or not, but a source must be reliable if it is used to establish notability and primary content. --Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also stating it as a view in a talk page. We are allowed original research in talk pages, but am afraid we are not allowed such in articles.

You seem not to understand what constitutes original research in wikipedia, in particular the synthesis variant. Again, go to experienced editors in the original research noticeboard for an explanation, you don't have to take it from me.--Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok even with original research, it still seems a bit unclear why Dietzgen's monism means his writings had no relationship with polylogism. Certainly the Austrians seem to think so. Why should your opinion be elevated above theirs? TMLutas (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue: Where do the Austrians express they think this? You havent found a single secondary or tertiary sources that says this is part of a formal, widely held, view on Dietzgen, or at least a consensus of Austrian School and/or Misean academics. What has been provided are unacceptable primary sources. Hence, the discussion on Dietzgen should be out until relevant sourcing is provided. Since this issue doesn't invalidate the whole article, I simply removed the section in order to remove the tags and concentrate on notability.--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

3) Lastly, almost all sources are primary sources of the usage or advocacy of the term, and not secondary or tertiary sources explaining its meaning, and more importantly, its notability.

I have included a few secondary sources in my list above. You only need a couple to go over the threshold justifying an article so let's not move the goal posts beyond already existent standards. TMLutas (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

None of them are secondary sources of any notability that meet the reliable sources criteria. This is an AND situation, not AND/OR or XOR. Again, have a look at what is a reliable source, and you will see this is prima facie. Failure to see this might be construed as contentious editing, which is the inability some editors to go beyond reasonable disagreement and into a denial of simple reality. --Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that I've pulled out enough bona fide journal articles in my second go around that your accusation doesn't quite fit. TMLutas (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They do establish the existence of the term, which I do not dispute, which is why I do not submit this article to an AfD.--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

These reveal a major problem, which is the article seems to consist of examples of what editors feel are "polylogisms" rather than an encyclopedic overview of what others say it is, including its origin as a concept, publishing history, criticism, etc. The article need not be huge or complete, but it needs to fix these issues, even as a stub.

Usually you fix the "I feel this means" type problems with an NPOV tag. I put one up and you took it down but now you complain that the article's NPOV and cite it a major problem? That does not seem to make much sense to me. TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For example Cambridge change is a stub with only 2 references, but manages to convey origins, content, and examples in a way that is clearly incomplete, but is neither original research, nor lacking of notability, nor using primary source material.

Because of these isssues, I remain unconvinced it warrants a stand-alone article. Certainly the concept is not a hoax or a forced neologism, but just because something exists it doesn't mean it warrants an article of its own.

--Cerejota (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And the criterion for deciding what should be in is fairly well specified in Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Polylogism passes the hurdles. The article's been around since 2007 and you admitted that it could be an article in your 2009 commentary. What's gotten you sour on it? TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously didn't see Cambridge change, which does actually meet the criteria, unlike this article.

My assertion is precisely that it doesn't meet a number of very important rules, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RS . There is no hurry to delete the article, however you again misread me. I said it could be an article if it meant certain conditions, I still think it hasn't met them. Two years to fix is a long time, and at some point we have to make a call. In the meantime, we can warn the community there are issues to be addressed, and hopefully by raising these questions we can get them fixed. In addition, rather than a full delete, which would be idiotic, I am asking we consider a merge and redirect to a relevant article.

Also, the longevity of an article is no reason to keep it, and in fact, is a laughable argument. See WP:LONGTIME (a behavioral guideline) and the great essay WP:ININ (which provides arguments in support of the guideline, so I don't have to repeat them to you). It is no reason to delete it either, its just irrelevant versus the really important stuff, such as notability, reliable sources, original research etc. --Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

boldy taim

I went WP:BOLD and fixed the article issues I saw. There still reamians the issue of notability, and of incomplete sourcing, but these are minor compared to the major issues that the article had previous to this edit. I will move to merge with some other article if the issue of notability is not addressed.--Cerejota (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong Bias

>Polylogism is a term used by some economists of the Austrian School and some philosophers of objectivism to denote the belief that different groups

This is a poor way to begin since it's not an actual description but an attempt to belittle individuals who use the word. It should be trimmed down to: "denote the belief that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways."

>However such accusations of polylogism have lacked textual support,[citation needed] so it remains unclear whether the term 'polylogism' describes any actual serious body of thought.

This statement is both biased and baseless. If it's author can find some backing however it should be placed in a "criticisms" section. Though I don't quite understand why a definition would need one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoonamaI (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand either of your two comments. The first comment claims that the opening sentence is not a description but rather an attempt to belittle. Please explain. It identifies not only the meaning of the term, but the users of the term. In what sense does it "belittle" individuals who use the word to mention their intellectual traditions? I see no attempt to "belittle". To the contrary, authors in the Austrian tradition are used as references in the article. You call the second quoted statement "biased and baseless". However it is common knowledge that Mises did not provide textual support, and writers on polylogism frequently acknowledge that polylogism is not a body of thought. E.g., Perrin (see article refs) says (p.22): "polylogism is no longer defended as such", and he can hardly be considered biased against users of the term! Cerberus (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deleting in Russian Wiki

In Russian Wikipedia this article has been nominated for deletion. Please, help to save it! Eozhik (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear colleagues, sad news: they eventually deleted this article. Eozhik (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonjudgmental definition

It seems to me that it would be straightforward enough to define Polylogism without incorporating an immediate judgment for or against it. For example, "the assertion that the truth of a statement or position is dependent upon the perspective or personal background of an observer." To go further with examples doesn't require confining the discussion to the Austrian School or to Dietzgen. Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice appears to have recourse to a kind of polylogism. Whether this is justified is a separate matter. Innocent81 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)