Talk:Polylogism

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think as espoused by Adolf Hitler, it said that "Aryan logic" could never be learned by Jews.  So it wasn't just different ideas; it was saying there's some innate unbridgeable communications gap. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to see a quote or two where Hitler explicitly claimed this. Thank you. Cerberus (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  "Obviously, it means the people have different ideas or ways of dealing with reality."   Why is that obvious?  Polylogism, it seems to me, is descriptive of the process of reasoning from one given point in an argument to another.  It does not deny that some people have different ideas or live in different practical realities based upon their differing life experiences.  If two people begin with identical sets of assumptions, and proceed on a course of logical reasoning, they will likely end up at generally the same conclusions if they are not distracted by incoming biases along the way.  Having different ideas or ways of dealing with reality most likely means their sets of opening assumptions are different.  So, the claim that there might be different structures of logic seems absurd to me.  If the claim were true, how then could two people ever agree on anything if they used different logics to arrive at their positions?  Each human being would be communicatively isolated from all others.184.22.160.248 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I've marked this article as NPOV, because it just rushes too hastily with the conclusion that polylogism is false, without including any contrary opinions. For example, the objection that
people holding these various "logics" live in the same reality has been criticized, indirectly, by Kuhn and Feyerabend on the basis of incommensurability. Kuhn remarked in SSR that At the very least, as a result of discovering oxygen, Lavoisier saw nature differently. And in the absence of some recourse to that hypothetical fixed nature that he "saw differently," the principle of economy will urge us to say that after discovering oxygen Lavoisier worked in a different world. and Feyerabend in SFS that For we certainly cannot assume that two incommensurable theories deal with one and the same objective state of affairs (to make the assumption we would have to assume that both at least refer to the same objective situation. But how can we assume that 'they both' refer to the same situation when 'they both' never make sense together? Such criticism would seem to apply to this objection to polylogism and should be noted.
In addition, I find it strange that the examples used are Marx and the Nazis. Were they really of the belief that "bourgeois logic" /"Jewish logic" and that of their own favored classes were "equally valid" (as the article states)? I'd find it rather surprising. But if not, then they weren't really polylogists. --Jjensenii (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article is unsourced, and the only external link is to a partisan source (that is indeed relevant if the article were better). Thing is, this is not a philosphical term generally accepted in discourse: it is a partisan term for Objectivists and Austrian Economics. Yet the article fails to mention any of this..--Cerejota (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I've tried to address this twice now, but partisans are the most active editors. I did not add a clear comment that this is not a term of art, because it is hard to prove a negative.  However, you are correct about this. Cerberus (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cerberus that fragment that you included wasn't neutral at all. --Sageo (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean the phrase "term of abuse"?  It is descriptive: read Mises.  Nevertheless, I will not restore it.Cerberus (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I've taken a stab at addressing some of the issues with this article -- particularly references.  One additional problem I noted was that the paragraph refuting polylogism was copied from  (the text was at that site for years prior to this article).  This still desperately needs expert attention to address the other questions you raised. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags 

message: The nazi is an advocate of polylogic with different racial characteristics, the nationalist based on nationality, and the marxist based on class. So Ricardo is condemned by the Nazi because he is jewish, the german nationalist because he is english, and the marxist because he is bourgeois. I'm going to take a crack at introducing more concrete examinations of polylogic because without the concrete, it's a bit difficult to discern what the big deal is about. We should at least be including Dietzgen and his ideas of proletarian logic. TMLutas (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of polylogic 

message: An interesting journal article on why polylogism references seem to come, in the main, from its Austrian School critics:
HERMENEUTIC ECONOMICS: BETWEEN RELATIVISM AND PROGRESSIVE POLYLOGISM 
A concept is no less notable if it is a label hostilely applied by its critics. Maybe we can mine this to talk about some authors more recent than Mises. TMLutas (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument ad hominem is not the same thing as polylogism. Noting that different groups have different levels of scientific understanding is not polylogism. Note that the primary source cited in the article is Mises, who does *not* provide textual support for his claims! (See the section below on Lack of Textual Support.) Cerberus (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing ad hominem about observing that an author is bourgeoise, black, or a jew for that matter. You may want to rethink your point. You accidentally (I hope!) said something quite insulting. TMLutas (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made three separate points. Each is true. You have addressed none of them.  Your "criticism" has nothing to do with my comments.  But to elaborate what I had presumed was obvious, Nazi's used argument ad hominem to attack the scientific contributions of Jews. Just because we do not share the Nazi's understanding of what constitutes a negative attribute does not change the fact that their arguments can be classified as ad hominem. And this does not involve polylogism. Cerberus (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polylogism as a fallback defense against accusations of relativism 

message: Please do not remove from the first paragraph the sentence "However such accusations of polylogism have lacked textual support, so it remains unclear whether the term describes any actual serious body of thought" unless you can show it is erroneous.  This is an important qualification to the entry! Cerberus (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite the evidence that the statement is even true. So far it smells like original research to me which is why I've been removing it. I'm compromising with a cite tag for now. TMLutas (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This reverses the appropriate burden of proof. It is common knowledge that Mises did not provide textual support for his accusations of polylogism, and that Austrian discussions of polylogism generally cite Mises. There is no "research" involved in acknowledging this, although you are free to confirm it by reading Mises. The first half of the sentence is obviously true. The right way to challenge the second half of this sentence is to provide even one example of a serious school of a thought explicitly asserting normative polylogism. This history of this article shows how hard that is to do. Cerberus (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, common knowledge is not something you can just whip out and win a point. Lots of things that people think are common knowledge are neither common, nor actually true. And this isn't a debating group and you aren't the referee. There are standards in place in Wikipedia and we should be following them. You weren't. You got called on it. It happens to everybody. So cite your position or let it go. TMLutas (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Textual Support 

message: I went WP:BOLD and fixed the article issues I saw. There still reamians the issue of notability, and of incomplete sourcing, but these are minor compared to the major issues that the article had previous to this edit. I will move to merge with some other article if the issue of notability is not addressed.--Cerejota (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  boldy taim 

message: >Polylogism is a term used by some economists of the Austrian School and some philosophers of objectivism to denote the belief that different groups
This is a poor way to begin since it's not an actual description but an attempt to belittle individuals who use the word. It should be trimmed down to: "denote the belief that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways."
>However such accusations of polylogism have lacked textual support,[citation needed] so it remains unclear whether the term 'polylogism' describes any actual serious body of thought.
This statement is both biased and baseless. If it's author can find some backing however it should be placed in a "criticisms" section. Though I don't quite understand why a definition would need one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoonamaI (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand either of your two comments. The first comment claims that the opening sentence is not a description but rather an attempt to belittle.  Please explain.  It identifies not only the meaning of the term, but the users of the term. In what sense does it "belittle" individuals who use the word to mention their intellectual traditions? I see no attempt to "belittle". To the contrary, authors in the Austrian tradition are used as references in the article. You call the second quoted statement "biased and baseless". However it is common knowledge that Mises did not provide textual support, and writers on polylogism frequently acknowledge that polylogism is not a body of thought.  E.g., Perrin (see article refs) says (p.22): "polylogism is no longer defended as such", and he can hardly be considered biased against users of the term! Cerberus (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Bias 

message: In Russian Wikipedia this article has been nominated for deletion. Please, help to save it! Eozhik (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deleting in Russian Wiki 

message: It seems to me that it would be straightforward enough to define Polylogism without incorporating an immediate judgment for or against it.  For example, "the assertion that the truth of a statement or position is dependent upon the perspective or personal background of an observer."  To go further with examples doesn't require confining the discussion to the Austrian School or to Dietzgen.  Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice appears to have recourse to a kind of polylogism.  Whether this is justified is a separate matter.
Innocent81 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonjudgmental definition