Talk:Reflective equilibrium

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Poor, controversial example of reflective equilibrium[edit]

The example from 'The Bible' of reflective equilibrium is unnecessarily provocative and controversial. It's also simplistic and inaccurate. No serious theologian takes the two passages cited as an example of a contradiction or even a paradox that demands the kind of work done toward reflective equilibrium. New Testament ethics is an extremely difficult subject matter, and it's highly controversial. Moreover, it makes no sense to use a controversial example, one that's wrapped up in 2000 years of theology and context, etc., when there are easily available examples that are uncontroversial and easier to understand. For this reason, I propose that another example be offered, perhaps one from the literature.

Note also that it makes no sense to cite "The Bible" without directing the reader to which Bible. The Bible is not a book by one author, and the contents of "The Bible" are disputed. Whoever wrote this particular section of this article is too ignorant to be working in this subject matter. Tylerscot (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the example is controversial and unsuitable. That said, it's about an ordinary person, e.g. a Christian fundie such as do exist in the world; this has nothing to do with what you deign to consider a "serious theologian". And by the way, of course a "serious theologian" won't recognize that there is an obvious and ridiculously simple problem that discredits the scriptures; after all, if a person is inclined to recognize such a thing, he will have realized that "serious theologian" is an oxymoron and then he won't have become a theologian in the first place. A scholar of religion, perhaps, but not a "scholar of God", which is what a theologian is supposed to be.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to reflective equilibrium[edit]

I think you might want to write more about reflective equilibrium's contentiousness by published authors or simply thought. For instance, you might include that RE is actually circular because in the end you end up just asserting your own beliefs and intuitions. You might also write that RE might actually lead to asserting things which are unjust, because your intuitions might actually be completely wrong. In any case, it would be worth examining in the article. 70.72.45.131 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have read about reflective equilibrium addresses these objections. See, for example, Kai Nielsen's writings on wide reflective equilibrium. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]