Talk:Ontological commitment

message: Does anyone understand what the “[sic]” comment in the Quine quote refers to?
: Formally it is precisely in allowing quantification over class variables α, β, &c., that we assume a range of values for these variables to refer [sic] to.
— Daniel Brockman 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the &ldquo;[sic]&rdquo; refer to? 

message: The article says “Napoleon is one of my ancestors” can be rewritten as “any group of people that includes me and the parents of each person in the group must also include Napoleon.” However, what if the person saying this is Napoleon, himself? Clearly, Napoleon is not one of his own ancestors. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem? 

message: I'm no expert of ontological commitment, but the statement "sentences of this kind cannot be interpreted in first-order logic" seems to me to be false. One may simply embed the desired representation in a first-order set theory. What would be wrong with this solution?
(Marco Colombetti)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.121.192 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not expressible in First Order Logic? 

message: There are a number of technical terms used like "existential quantifiers" and "first-order" and "second-order" and on and on that need a lot better introduction and sourcing. I moved the paragraph with these unidentified terms into their own sub-section where they sit as so much gobbledygook. Brews ohare (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of philosophical meaning of ontological commitment needs work 

message: The following section was deleted by Snowded as "original research". This discussion closely parallels Baker's article as cited and uses his reference to Quine for the definition of ontological commitment. As Baker's article is an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I am taken aback at this chutzpah claiming (in essence) WP's standards are superior to theirs. Here is a Google books search showing 1470 discussions using this term in published books. Here is a Google scholar search showing 772 technical journal articles referring to ontological parsimony. Here are 56 articles referring to Baker's article in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Snowded: What is your problem here? Brews ohare (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2.
While a common formulation stipulates only that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, this version by contrast, states that entities should not be multiplied other things being equal, and this is compatible with parsimony being a comparatively weak theoretical virtue.
====Sources====
====Comments====
*Deletion of this sub-section on the basis that it is "original research" is nonsense. If Baker's Stanford Encyclopedia article is thought to be incorrect or parochial in its treatment of this term, the correct approach it so introduce another reputable source and present both views. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontological parsimony deleted by Snowded 

message: *Deletion of this sub-section on the basis that it is "original research" is nonsense. If Baker's Stanford Encyclopedia article is thought to be incorrect or parochial in its treatment of this term, the correct approach it so introduce another reputable source and present both views. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments