Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivity (science)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article repeats objectivity (philosophy), which itself states that it is "concerned by epistemic and metaphysical discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of objectivity to other general objectivity articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is an ontological discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the being article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the objectivity article and the objectivity (philosophy) article. Lapaz 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was objectively incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dicdef. I'm not sure if there's a joke here, or who's it on. Tychocat 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Beg your pardon? I am not sure that I am mentally equipped to follow the reasoning of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, the concept of objectivity in science can be discussed without delving into Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena; in fact, science is only about the world as we experience it and has no business in distinguishing it from a metaphysical concept of a presumed world as it truly is. The article is not quite a dictionary definition either, or else I should advise you to acquire another dictionary. If the nominator's recommendation is to merge this into Objectivity (philosophy), well, we don't need to do that through the mechanism of a deletion debate. But I'm not sure what the intention of the recommendation is. Perhaps it is to deny that there are other concepts of objectivity than the philosophical one, and that all traces should be erased of articles that attempt to bypass an ontological discussion using Hegelian dialectic. --Lambiam^Talk 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since you asked, I want this "article" to be deleted because it's a dictionary definition (dicdef) better suited for Wiktionary. No comment on philosophical validity given or implied. Tychocat 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently I was not clear, but I was referring to the nominator Lapaz's recommendation. If you understand it, please explain. --Lambiam^Talk 08:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tychocat. I'm almost tempted to vote for speedy just to keep this debate from becoming paragraphs upon paragraphs of philosophical jargon. --Coredesat 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It won't, not from me, in any case. I can see how this could go. Tychocat 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Dicdef, not a specifically scientific use of the word. Tevildo 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep I think it was me who created the article. To follow Lambiam I feel there is significant difference to how the term objectivity is used in Science with its strict philosophical usage. In science it has a more pragmatic usage, perhaps more equivilent to objectivity (journalism). It is more a thing to be aimed for rather than an absolute measure. Whilst I feel there is ample scope to expand this article to give a good treatment of how the word objective is used in science, alas I do not have time to devote to it. Further Objectivity (philosophy) is too full of philosophical jargon to make it an accessable article for the average scientist. Further still quantum physics with its paradoxes related to observers has useful contribution to the whole notion of objectivity. --Salix alba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mark as stub, and expand. Gillespie's Edge of Objectivity is specifically on this subject (rather than philosophy), and I'm sure there are others; I read it too long ago to edit the article today. In any case, this nomination is a merge request; there's no case to delete. Septentrionalis 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lambiam has done a significant expansion (it was already and still is marked as a stub). The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. The article is not a dictionary definition anymore, it is far too long for that and doesn't read that way. A merge could be done if the editors of the two pages want to, but that should be discussed on those two pages. If a merge happens, and if the resultant redirect isn't necessary, though I suspect it would be, then that can be brought up at RFD. GRBerry 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.