Talk:Mediocrity principle

message: This section is given far too much prominence. Zazaban 01:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, it seems unsubstantiated as hell.  It was probably added by the same person who put 'citation needed' markers all over the place.  I am summarily deleting it. 112.110.4.162 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The introductory paragraph says:
::The mediocrity principle is further boosted by:
::* Fossil evidence supported by genetics concluding that all humans have a common ancestor about 100,000 years ago and that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees about six million years ago. Therefore humans are part of the biosphere, not above it or unique to it.
::* Humans share about 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have actually undergone more genetic change than humans(view:).
::* The answering of Schrödinger's question  What is Life? through the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA and the reduction of life to organic chemistry, negating the vitalism of previous centuries.
::* Francis Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis" suggests that consciousness is simply the function of the brain.
::* When the Human Genome Project released its findings in 2003, it was discovered that the human genome only has 24,000 genes. As recently as the 1990s, humans were considered so complex as to have about 300,000 genes.
::* Evolutionary psychology is discovering the limits to human rationality, biological psychology exposes the material nature of cognition and moral sense with fMRI scans, economic and political studies find regularities in the behaviors of large groups of humans.
These are not supporting evidences at all, since they have nothing specific to do with the mediocrity principal, and apply just as equally to its alternative hypothesis, the Rare_Earth_hypothesis.  The following is the only point currently listed that has any credence in distinguishing this theory from any other:
::* Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is a lot larger than humans first thought and James Hutton discovered the Earth is a lot older. The Hubble Deep Field is a long exposure of thousands of galaxies, making it one of the best pictorial representations of the principle of mediocrity.
129.139.1.68 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think that the bullet points do very little to support the Principle, and some are very suspicious in themselves. In fact, they also seem very much like Original Research. IMHO definitely to be edited or removed. 84.1.190.86 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boosted? 

message: This article is a mess! I added a complete rewrite template since every section needs to be rewritten. The problems I see are:
* No clear structure.
* No clear definitions. (The article gives a vague impression that something about humanity is common to something else—and that's about it. Definitions seem to range from "Human DNA is mediocre in relation to other animals" to "Earth is mediocre in relation to the universe.")
* Confusing or irrelevant facts. (In one place an appeal is made to evolutionary / biological psychology as support for the non-uniqueness of humanity. Well, without a clear definition(s) of the topic, this is just confusing. And depending on the definition(s) it may be irrelevant. Granted that human rationality is limited [whatever that means], and conscious thought is merely an epiphenomena of material states in the brain [both of which are controversial assertions]—that has nothing to do with the question of whether Earth-like planets are rare in the solar system or universe, whether intelligent life is rare in the solar system or universe, whether human traits are rare among animals, &c.)
* No criticism or counter-factual data presented. (This isn't required, but if there are WP:RS sources with WP:N opinions, they should be included.)
* Too many "See Also" links. (Nihilism? Fatalism?)
As it stands now, the article looks more like an apologetic for a particular point of view than an encyclopedia article about a scientific or philosophic principle. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for adding rewrite template 

message: I'm bringing this paragraph here from the article, because it seems like original research. It seems to be some kind of reaction to the content in the "As a philosophical statement" section, which is where it was. Is this rebuttal of the mediocrity principle published somewhere that we can cite? -68.191.214.241 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on in this paragraph? 

message: As part of my history of psychology class I will be editing and improving the content of this article as it pertains to both psychology and philosophy. I am open to all comments and suggestions to help me through this process Allenmad2234 (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't sign your changes to the article, or use a red color and  tags to strikeout material. Perhaps a WP:SANDBOX (here: User:Allenmad2234/Mediocrity principle) might be more appropriate for your classwork?—Machine Elf 1735 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classwork 

message: At this moment the article seems too much to be just an Andre Kukla's book advertising... -- A man without a country (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Don't have a problem with including Kukla's arguments, but the page does need more from other sources. I've added a "one source" template to the top. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andre Kukla's book ad? 

message: The opening sentence: "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories", seems not to be well formulated. I think it should read somehow like: "if an item drawn at random turns out to be originating from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories" Madyno (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: The first sentence of this section reads as follows:  Should that say "incorrect" or have I misunderstood? In the same paragraph he is reported as saying that the earth's neighbourhood in the universe is atypical; doesn't that imply the opposite? 222.152.180.44 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Uses section