Talk:Generalization

message: I suggest we move the part about cartography to Cartographic generalization. --Dittaeva 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move cartography part 

message: We should always bear in mind that we are writing an encyclopaedia here and what we are writing should be clear for the uninitiated who will not know what the first section of this article is all about. You are not addressing your peers here necessarily, but people who will probably not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Please bear this in mind, at least please make it clear which branch of science you are referring to - logic, mathematics, linguistics?. Dieter Simon 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re the "Confusing" note 

message: 2006-10-16 Added intro paragraph to help with the confusion indication.
This article, when developed further, will almost certainly call for disambiguation. It is recommended that the intro paragraph give a basic, layman-friendly introduction, with perhaps a short paragraph giving an example, and the remainder of the article pointing to already-existing and yet-to-be-created articles in mathematics, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, and whatever other specific contexts.
Generalization is a fundamental component of human reasoning and cognition. It is difficult to see how this article could develop as an independent entity and still remain accessible and clear. drefty.mac 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro para ;; promote change to disambiguation or see also ;; note similarity to [[generic]] 

message: It appears to me everyone has abandoned Generalizations. So if you guys don't mind. I will try and edit the page so that it focuses more on the argumentative aspect generalizations. This is where it is most often used. The math aspect to me is rather vague. This whole article is rather vague. Weszup 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the page to be more helpful 

message: You would think that an article that is supposed to convey information would provide the ordinary–language definition instead of the mathematical  definition. Generalization is the assumption that if an entity has a particular attribute then most or all instances of that entity will also have the same attribute. It's that simple. Examples of  a generalization are, "most Irishmen like to fight," "all lemons are bitter," or "every swan is white." Isn't this clearer than saying that generalization "posits the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements"?Lestrade (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with your objection is that your recommendation and the examples you are citing aren't of a similar nature. You should be giving a more simplified version of the statement "posits the existence..." rather than giving us a set of examples which I presume you mean to sound amusing rather than being factual: "All Irishmen like to fight?" Go on then, and replace the sentence you are referring to by something more readable if you can. Don't just complain, do it, why don't you? Dieter Simon (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Readers want clear, simple information

message: Protected Generalization [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected article: Generalization 

message: A logically consistent encyclopediac article on generalization should not be mathematical to the point of being specialized. The article, as is, is very poor. GreySun (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it made no sense at all, one thing if you specialize in mathematics, but AN ARTICLE that is not about mathematics, should not be mathematical, because that does not make sense, much less, being mathematical for something that is not about mathematics, has nothing to do with mathematics, and will never have any connection, between "Math" and a "Generalization" encyclopediac/article, lol. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: Currently it links to "Gemein". It should, however, link to "Generalisierung"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.13.2.238 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to German Wikipedia wrong 

message: It seems to me that everyone here has valid points about this article. However, I don't understand why people are trying to focus on one particular aspect of generalization, nor do I understand why half the article is written in such an overcomplicated way. We're talking about generalizing here, the process of processing a collection of data and forming a basic idea or model of what characteristics the data have in common. Trees are many different shades and hues and even colors, they come in many different shapes and sizes, but in general a tree is a rounded green blob of leaves on a brown stick stuck in the earth. Keep it simple, please, in the first paragraph, at least. Any specific uses of generalization can have their own sections, the way it is in any other Wikipedia article.
Also, I personally don't think that there should be such a focus on Generalization's relationship to Concept, or at least not in the first paragraph; a simple, brief, passing comparison should do.
And why is "set" linked to Set theory? The way it's used isn't necessarily mathematical in nature; it is only used as a synonym of 'group' or 'collection' or what have you, at least as far as I can tell.
In conclusion, it sounds like whoever wrote this had something to prove to someone, trying to sound intelligent and sophisticated, instead of trying to edit the article so that people can read it comfortably and readily understand it. There are topics which absolutely require advanced English and other technical writ in order to explain it accurately, but Generalization is hardly complicated or technical unless people actively try to make it that way. Everyone knows intuitively what Generalizing is (I'm doing it in this very sentence), we as editors only need to describe it - accurately, yet simply. You can go hog-wild with educated jargon in the sections below the introductory paragraph. Mousenight (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalizing Generalization 

message: summary: by generalizing you convert a unique object (hence of specific property) (including event, state, etc.) or individually existing object into an object with multiple or general existence (occurrence) either by experience or by hypothesis). Several grammar/syntax forms are available to do so, you may call them all generalizations.
Human languages and logic are tautological. The easiest way to illustrate the point is to generate a sentence like this: you generalize by generalizing to result in a generalization, which is general. Now clearly, the issue is what do you generalize? A word or a statement? If you start off with an object (word) and abstract its properties, you may add those properties to the object in subject position and claim that "vegetables are edible". This is considered to be general, because vegetables sound non-specified. The idea may also be stressed by saying "all vegetables are edible". So we call the statement a generalization because the subject is not specific "enough". That "enough" is subjective, though, depends on your knowledge. If this does not sound satisfactory, you may call for examples or proofs and you may list exemptions to argue. A subject may be considered general (not specific enough), if it is in plural, or singular preceded by a definite/indefinite article. Examples: Cows give milk. A cow gives milt, the cow gives milk. Whenever you have an encounter with a cow, you may then propagate any of the former observations unharmed. However, they all sound like rules, hence of general value and effect, therefore an example of generalization. Hence generalizing is nearly always present whenever you make a proposition. If the proposition is not specific enough, you protest.
If you consider generalization as a mental operation, which it may well be, then remember, that before you start generalizing, upon selecting an object and having experience with it, you perform abstraction, another mental operation by pinpointing some properties of that object (usually in comparison with others) and you use such a property or attribute to make your generalization (statement). Remember also that most of the statements you make tell you about some property of some object.
So in fact, you generalize a one-time experience by using one of the possibly several forms available in your language that all sound generalizations.
Compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Generalization
89.133.206.224 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalizing or Generalization 

message: WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM.
This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induction & deduction