Talk:Direct realism

message: The merger was suggested by Srnec on 13th November 2008. It is clearly not a hot topic, however it is suggested that some kind of merger is required because it is thought that naive realism and direct realism are synonyms.
There is some overlap between the issues discussed in each article however the naive realism article is far more in-depth. For example, the Philosophy WikiProject has rated the direct realism article as Start-Class and the naive realism article as B-Class.
I would suggest that the sections from the direct realism article that are not already covered by the naive realism article should be integrated into the naive realism article and the direct realism article be redirected there. The reason for this is because the term naive realism is more commonly used than the term direct realism, especially in contemporary debates such as quantum mechanics. As a test of this here are some google results "naive realism" (57,400 results), "direct realism" (21,800 results), "naive realism" quantum (4,720 results), "direct realism" (1,750 results).
What do other's think? Anandavala (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[naive realism]] article? 

message: (inserted by ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (random heading)

message: Does this "philosophy" have proponents, or is it just a constructed philosophy used to disprove certain kinds of errors? Like f.ex. solipsism that is constructed as a point of view, and later on labeled onto dead philosophers (the safest ones) in order to prove a partially dishonest point? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another anonymous dirt bag (128.197.78.165) tried to make the same claim over on the talk page on Naive Realism, and even attempted to back their claim up with references to survey data.  The only problem is they interpreted the real data completely backwards as I pointed out in reply on that talk page.  I've been working on the Consciousness Survey Project for several years now, going to conferences, interviewing experts, canonizing their views, and so on.  Despite my efforts, I have failed to find many proponents of this view, non that were willing to support them in the survey project.  Glen Sizemore at least participated in some discussion supporting this view, as  can be seen in the survey forum here.  But despite my best efforts encouraging him, and the few others I have found, non have been willing to put their neck on the line.  As ever more experts contribute to this survey it appears there is a real possibility that the experts are abandoning all other theories of consciousness as being falsified, including Naieve realism, and that a revolutionary scientific consensus could be forming around what the early participating experts (including Lehar, Smythies, Hameroff... ) have just decided to call Representational Qualia Theory.  The more people that contribute to this survey, the better we will be able to measure if, indeed, this revolution is taking place or not. Brent.Allsop (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponents?

message: This article lacks any in-line citations and reads like a weak university essay rather than an encyclopedia article.  It is an  interesting topic as it spans both philosophy of mind and psychology of perception.  I wonder if that can be represented better in the content and style of writing.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations