The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jasonchild]

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/

[Qfwfq]

It could be a good source of info, but caution. I once read through the page about Bohm's interpratation and found it biased to the point of saying highly dubious things to give it support.

[jasonchild]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

It could be a good source of info, but caution. I once read through the page about Bohm's interpratation and found it biased to the point of saying highly dubious things to give it support.

In my opinion ALL information (on the internet, journals, major publications, etc) should be ingested with a gain of NaCl. We need to assimilate as much diverse information as possible and then apply critical thinking and logic to draw our conclusions.

regards,

jCc

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by jasonchild

In my opinion ALL information (on the internet, journals, major publications, etc) should be ingested with a gain of NaCl.

Now you're talking!!!

Of course, one would tend to consider the source when judging reliability, it's a pity that a name like Stanford doesn't guarantee at least a tiny bit better.

[DAK]

Check out H. Stapp. )

DAK

[Harzburgite]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

It could be a good source of info, but caution. I once read through the page about Bohm's interpratation and found it biased to the point of saying highly dubious things to give it support.

It is not unexpected to find a particular perspective within any encyclopedic work. A good encyclopedia editorial board will use recognised experts to write each section. Necessarily, some of these will hold less conventional views, or tend to favour one side of alternative positions. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the author of each piece is clearly identified, with links to their qualifications and history. I think the end result is a very useful resource, at least for the amateur philosopher.

[DAK]

<Necessarily, some of these will hold less conventional views>

I'm sure all on the board are well aware that many major advances in knowlege were 'unconventional' at one time. In fact, psychologically speaking, avoiding viewpoints that one finds objectionable need to be looked at. One should be very sure WHY he finds it objectionable and make sure it's not simply a positionality one holds due to an "investment" in {a degree? past area of study?} an opposing view rather than a rejection not based on an emotionally charged issue.


DAK

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Harzburgite

It is not unexpected to find a particular perspective within any encyclopedic work. A good encyclopedia editorial board will use recognised experts to write each section. Necessarily, some of these will hold less conventional views, or tend to favour one side of alternative positions. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the author of each piece is clearly identified, with links to their qualifications and history. I think the end result is a very useful resource, at least for the amateur philosopher.

I was aware of all these things, Harzburgite, I consider myself old enough to know how to use an encyclopaedia, but it's a different matter when the author of one piece goes a bit further than stating their own views and state views of others that don't match up with those other's own words.

[Harzburgite]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I was aware of all these things, Harzburgite, I consider myself old enough to know how to use an encyclopaedia, .....

Well, I appear to have given offence by stating my thoughts on the matter. Consider this:
Based upon personal use I have found the The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be interesting, informative and helpful.
The level of this use, implicit in my post, is that of the amateur philosopher.
I have absolutely no idea what "Bohm's interpratation" (sic) is. [Nor any intention of googling it in the near future in order to fake erudition.]
A reasonable expectation is that someone who does know what is has some exposure to philosophy. Consequently the casual reader accords them the honorary title expert and pays heed.
Said 'expert' now raises a note of caution about the source.
Casual reader thinks, "I'll avoid that then"
"What a loss" thinks Harzburgite "I'll post a counterpoint, directed at the casual reader, not at alphabet soup."

In passing H considers the difference between these two statements:

a)I....found it biased to the point of saying highly dubious things to give it support..
b)the author of one piece goes a bit further than stating their own views and state views of others that don't match up with those other's own words.

Can they really be describing the same passage? Mild mannered statement a) merited the counterpoint post. More detailed and scathing post b) did not.

H ponders whether he should apologise for offending Qfwfq because of the lack of precision in Qfwfq's initial post and decides against it. [On the grounds of, 'once a pedantic peasant, always a pedantic peasant']

[Qfwfq]

I did not mean to cause anyone to actually avoid Plato, which I myself found helpful the odd time, I no more than durst drop a remark, state my own thoughts, with no intention of offence.

I was aware of the difference between a) and b) but I don't fully agree with your dissertation. Your reply to a) might have been justified had I only said "biased" without the rest. Although I had hurriedly said "highly dubious things" without better specifying, I believe that I had nevertheless made a point about why to be cautious.

While the point of a philosopher's writing is that of them freely giving their own pov and supporting it, ready to be criticized by other philosophers, I believe that an article in an encyclopaedia of philosophy should have a more limited purpose, that of saying what philosopher Joe said and why, and what other philosophers said about him and why. Otherwise call it an article of philosophy and not one of a philosophical encyclopaedia. Bias cannot perhaps be totally avoided but it does go somewhat against the purpose.

Saying "highly dubious things", whatever the hell I meant by that, is something OK for a philosopher to do but I find it less appropriate in the encyclopaedia. It is of course fine for the encyclopaedia to say those things as being the views of that philosopher, I consider it implicit that I meant one thing and not the other. If, instead, I said that Popper agreed with every word Carnap said, I'd be a fraud and a liar; an encyclopaedia of philosophy should certainly not include it. I'd be more honest to say he was a great friend of Carnap and they agreed on many things but were constantly critically discussing each other's views.