h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Have you seen the latest edited version - taking into account feedback?

>>To be honest it seems you have an agenda in your criticism. Maybe it offends your sensibilities to have Faith Integrated with Reason.<<

Sure, PR is for entries to be included in the EG, and there are guidelines which tell us which entries can, and which can't be included. As cy said, in its current state, yours doesn't fit the guidelines. If you have proof for the theories, then fine. Just throwing some more names into the conversation and generally being arrogant is no proof.

Ok, Pilgrim. If you do want to work on this, which I didn't orginially believe was the case, you'll need to make this as accessible as possible. You need to imagine you're writing to an audience that knows absolutely nothing about what you're talking about - terms like 'arational' will be new to a lot of readers. You'll need to structure the Entry to introduce concepts slowly and carefully - for example,explain Rational and Emipirical 'reasoning modes', perhaps in seperate sections before comparing the two.

It would probably be helpful to you as a writer to look at other h2g2 Entries such as A1024156 (on Wittgenstein) to get an idea of how to make your entry readable to the masses.

You've improved the Entry, but it does need a lot of work, and ultimately it depends if you're prepared to take a very different approach with it. It will be a big task - over to you.

These might help, too - all Entries on fairly inaccessible subjects, made into good Entries with the right approach:

A776117 Free Will versus Determinism
A898680 The Omniscience of God and Human Freewill
A455311 Ayn Rand and Objectivism

It's still an exposition of a very personal perspective. The EG is not for trying to get new ideas accepted. It's for writing about existing ideas in an engaging, informative and stimulating fashion.

Our jobn is not to argue the merits or otherise of new philosophical arguments. It's to check that what has been written is factually correct. Besides, it reads like the kind of stuff that undegraduates produce in the hope it will impress their tutors.

You *did* read the Writing Guidelines before you submitted, didn't you?

Thanks at least there is a positive in your remarks and I'll take them on board. Shortly after my original posting there was a lot of negativity, it made me wonder what was the point in sharing.

Adressing the point from B'Elana about proof. Proof in Metaphysics is something really hard to manifest, the best you can get are models that seem to hold together better than the ones before. Having said that what I am offering is based on well established work in that field

However working in this area you learn to tread carefully, since there is a lot of prejudice about. Folks will disagree from one extreme (from a kind of Scientism worldview) to another Religous Fundamentalist aspect. But the theory is an Emergent, Inclusive, Post Modern system with a goal of seeking truth that is tolerant of other worldviews.

Is it my theory? No not really (at least to the extent addressed in the entry). Pope Benedict XVI was in the news recently regarding his address at Regensberg, he made some remarks that got picked up out of context and had to clarify/apolgize for hurt caused. But the whole jist of his speech (addressed to their Science Faculty) was on finding just this kind of respect for Tolerance & Truth, putting violence and irrationality into the trash can. That's the main source of the "Metaphysics" (you can find this in detail in Ratzinger Book: Truth and Tolerance). As for the Mathematical formalism that's from well known academics such as Michael Dummet and Karl Raimund Popper.

Actually all that I have done that is "new" in this posting is give it a new name - Critical Rational Fideism (which is a slight variation on Popper's CR anyway).

Dear FM - Your remarks seem again to be very loaded, arrogant and dismissive. Have you read the revision, made after feedback? Do you have any constructive remarks to make? Or is your objective to disparage researchers from making entries that dont support your worldview?

This has nothing to do with my worldview and its correspondence or otherwise with yours. It has everything to do with your entry's correspondence with the purpose of this project. If you are discussing an established principle in philosopy then it probably has a place in the EG. If not, then it doesn't belong here.

My *main* problem with this entry is that it reads like a philosophy term paper and even if it was discussing an established idea it does little to illustrate the other ideas contained therein to the lay reader. I suggest you start by always underestimating your audience's knowledge and expand upon the arguments put forward by those you mention in passing. But before that, think about whether it's solely your own hypothesis you are advancing. If it is, it would be better off in Ask H2G2.

Hi, Pilgrim4truth!

I'm afraid that I don't think this has a hope of being accepted into the Guide as it stands, as the reader would have to a grounding in philosophy before they could understand it. Entries are supposed to be written so that anyone can read them and understand them.

If you really know your stuff, you should have no problem rewriting this in simple terms that everybody can understand.

Any good entry for the edited guide should be easily understandable by a reasonably intelligent lay person. This may make certain topics unsuitable for the edited guide.

I *do* have a grounding in philosophy, and I don't understand this entry.
The best way to start technical entries of this kind is to first explain clearly the background to what the subject is about, and what its status is. I'm not even sure about that.

Taking in points mentioned above I have tuned out the rejection of the "logical exclusion of the middle" arguments of Sir Michael Dummett (that relate to the Realist/Anti-realist aspect). That ployvanlent logic discussion can be left for another day.

Rather I have emphasized and expanded on the Truth and Tolerance aspects of the integration of Reason and Faith (as argued by proponents of Critical Rationalism) linking them to recent comments of Pope Benedict XVI in this area.

Sorry, but it isn't any clearer.

Otto - Are you telling me you cannot see the jist of what I am trying to communicate (I would be dissapointed if that was the case)? The issue here after I have made a couple of revisions dilligently trying to take feedback is two fold;

a) Is an Entry on "Truth and Tolerance - Integrating Reason and Faith" (new title) something that is worthwhile being attempted in principle for h2g2. Looking at other entries I don't see why not, it may need careful editing and clarification for sure - but I think the topic is really necessary and topical, particulary for a guide designed to help folks navigate themselves around "Life, the Universe and Everything")

b) Are there any specific areas that in your opinion need further attention so that the useful aspect of the topic is made well enough?

Well, it's less of an issue whether I can understand it or not as whether the general reader can understand it or not. And to go into the edited guide, the general reader would have to understand virtually all of it.

Let me illustrate. Take the first paragraph

"Are we able to build a Reasoning framework that allows us to apply our Rational & Empirical reasoning modes (popularly understood as the "Scientific Method") when it is appropriate to a particular problem (e.g., how long do I need to boil an egg before it is hard?) and at other times and places rely on a Faith based (i.e., Fideism) mode (e.g., Do I love this person enough to give up seeing others?)."

This is what I think that the average lay reader will think of this:

1. What's a reasoning framework?
2. What are rational and empirical reasoning modes? What is any reasoning mode? Are they two different modes, or are they the same mode?
3. What's Fideism?
4. What's a faith based mode?
5. What does deciding to commit oneself to only one other person have to do with faith?
6. What's the purpose in telling me all this?
7. Where is this all going?
8. Why the use of capital letters for certain words?
9. My head hurts.

As for what I think, I'm reminded of 'colourless green ideas sleep furiously' in that I understand much of what makes up the entry, but can't make any sense of the whole.

If your aim is to produce something that's in the guide, then you've already succeeded, as all entries are in the guide. But if you want to write something for the *edited* guide it has to be comprehensible, and I'm just not sure where to start with this one.

In general, my advice for anyone writing a technical entry for a lay audience is not to use jargon, to give a full and clear introduction explaining what and why it is important

As for an entry on integrating reason and faith, I think that might be possible, but only if it was written very clearly and considered all possible angles objectively and neutrally. An opinion piece would not be acceptable.

New version taking into account feedback to date

If you're going to write about philosophy for a lay audience, then at least write in terms they can understand. And touch base with some of their concerns about the subject instead of peppering your entry with jargon and namedropping. Otherwise you might end up being featured in an EG entry like this one: A2671733

I'll come back to this later, since I have already made a lot of changes today. I can take out words like "worldview" and "domains", etc., and I can make less references to the body of academic support behind the work. And I can put in a few case examples to give more application interest.

However what I would request from you is to stop the childish remarks, about peppering, name-dropping and threats (?!). And be constructive, your postings read like some kind of nasty, anti-pomo zealot. Lighten up for goodness sake.

Heavy, but not unreadable - at least, the first paragraph.

now, for the second:

>>We can see "truths" revealed to us through religious traditions or personal spiritual experience, and through this way of thinking make sense of the world (this is called a "Fideist worldview" and is adopted by many Religious people). Let us call this a "Faith" based worldview here.<<

-What about 'truths' revealed through life experience?

-the first sentence is kinda awkward. For a short bit there I thought it was actually a fragment. How about:

"Truths may be revealed to us through religious traditions or personal spiritual experience. This way of making sense of the world is called a 'Fideist Worldview', and is adopted by many religious people."

You see what people mean by your writing being dense? Its always easiest to read something when it's written in the simplest way possible, and in the shortest sentences possible. Philosophers tend to string on sentences for paragraphs, but you can't get away with that on h2g2.

Also, you can remedy the arguement that it's your opinion by either presenting it straightoff as the theory of somebody else. In fact, you should probably call it The Integrated Worldview Theory or something to that tune.

Don't kill me, other reviewers, but I think Pilgrim has been very forebearing and deserves some serious consideration.

I just read most of the rest, and didn't find it terribly confusing at all.

However, it will make it easier to follow if you break it up into sections and subsections, using the and GuideML. This will
1: let readers know a bit of what you're talking about before you say it
2: force you to organize what you say
3: make it easier to transition from point to point

You're right, Leo, it reads a whole lot better now and is much more comprehensible. But it's too late in tne night now for me to collect my thoughts and write down what I think is still unclear/missing, so I'll rather do that tomorrow if nobody else has done so then.

Thanks - I appreciate the constructive comments, I must be a stubborn old cuss keeping on with the crap thrown at me.