Talk:Sophism

message: I suggest that this page needs a quite radical edit, or perhaps to be merged with the article on Sophists, which it mostly repeats.  
Perhaps this article should be merged with Sophists. where we already have material on what sophists were originally, and how the term came to be derogatory. What is new in this (sophistry) article is the idea that sophists might win by conciously pandering to the prejudices of "the judges" - but I think this is just one sophistical trick (my dictionary prefers to define a sophist as "a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments" (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 edition).  
The author then moves on to peer review. By inference, the author is saying that peer review of academic literature is flawed because the right strategy is for authors to concentrate on getting the right response from peer review, rather than by rigorously seeking after the truth.  This assertion is (briefly) covered in the article aboutPeer review "Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and be llenient towards those that accord with them". Perhaps the link to the Sokal affair belongs somewhere around there in the Peer review article?
The sentence (in the sophistry article) about the "problem of academia" is not helpful - the article on Academia is a stub, and the "problem of academia" is nowhere defined. So I have moved this sentrence here in case it needs restoring:
Sophistry is central to the problem of modern Academia, as illustrated by the Sokal Affair.
I have not carried out my other suggestions - this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and it seems over the top to so radically alter another's work without discussion - discuss please!
Chris B 29/3/04
:I agree - this should be merged with sophist. By the way, if you make an account here, you can set up a watchlist of articles to keep an eye on - useful for both preventing vandalism and also for learning new things about topics you're interested in. And if you sign your discussion page comments with four tildes (~), you get a nice time/date stamp with a link to your user page. Welcome aboard, and edit boldly! If you think something should be radically altered, then feel free to alter it. Kwertii 20:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved paragraphs here from the article (above). Kwertii 02:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Topics

message: Hello there.  I seriously think this article needs to be under Sophism, and NOT Sophistry.  I am going to figure out how to change it and change it; if there are any objections, please voice them.  Possibly also merge it as below comments say, but under the title Sophism.--ArcticFrog 15:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with your decision.  —  Adam Conover † 03:16, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
"Though many sophists were as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views." I find this to be a rather ambiguous statement. I respectfully suggest that it either be rewritten (Explaining the religious atmosphere at that time, in that culture), or that it be taken out, or rewritten in some other way that dismisses said ambiguity.
Tyro the Kinky Kitty 09:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Sophism

message: To Whom It May Concern:
This article clearly is biased against the early Greek philosophers, Socrates and Plato in particular.  This is reflected in the placement of quotes. Information about the mystical beliefs of Socrates is placed without reference to his philosophical views.  There is a tone of condescension toward any (Whitehead is mentioned) who believe that Plato’s thought is the core of the Western philosophical tradition.  Interestingly enough, the article reflects the claims made about the sophists in its attempts to defend them.
:I suspect someone is trying to be clever and use sophistry to defend sophists.  If that's the reason for the bias of this article, this is not the place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.40.173 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in this article 

message: As just one example of the poor condition of this article, it says "the sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make 'the weaker argument appear the stronger')" -- This is a bastardization of Plato, a conflation of two different matters, and frames a very strange conclusion as established fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.229.149 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mish-mosh 

message: Why is Friedrich Nietzsche  listed in the See Also section? I looked in the Friedrich Nietzsche article, and the only reference to Sophism was "Nietzsche applauds Ceasar, Napoleon, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Thucydides and the Sophists as healthier and stronger types." There is only one other person singled out in the see also section, and that link has text explaining why he was listed. Perhaps text could be added to this link explaining why it is listed. Is the article claiming that he was a Sophist, it's unclear.--RLent 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedrich Nietzsche 

message: Is it really fair to characterize the Sophists as 'opponents' of Plato?Yeago (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Susan Jarratt, for one, has characterized them this way. There does seem to be direct opposition between the two; not always malicious, but nearly always oppositional. Plato believed in immutable truths, objective and absolute. Whether or not he believed that we could infallibly access these truths is another story - the Sophists didn't believe that these truths existed to be accessed. That's a serious schism.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophists as opponents of Plato 

message: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig is a book which examines the Sophists of ancient Greece in some detail.  This author, among other things, offers a rebuttal to the commonly held conceptions about sophistry.
Certainly there has been extensive literature written about the Greeks of antiquity; why is none of it linked in this article?  Is this some arcane Wikipedia policy that I don't know of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.81.34 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely is linked (not hyper). Check the notes section. It can always grow, of course.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant reading 

message: I'd like to propose that an article be created on the topic of "Sophistry".  I find it disconcerting to be redirected to "Sophism", when what I'm interested in is Sophistry. Unfree (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has tried to create an article on Sophistry as different from Sophism in the time since 2009. Anyone is free to do so, assuming it meets notability standards. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sophistry

message: Why I deleted "An Ad Hominem argument is an example of Sophistry."
If you say, "Round things are marvelous and ought to be preserved at all costs," and I say, "You're stupid", can anybody in his right mind accuse me of making an overly sophisticated remark? Unfree (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I believe this is in dispute and contentious:
"...led to the condemnations made by Plato (through Socrates in his dialogues)"
specifically the part about Plato writing through the character of Socrates, or at least changing the dialogues for his own motives. I was under this impression some people believed it was as good a faithful record of what Socrates said as could be, and some believed it was Plato writing, and the matter was not settled. Should this be labelled as disputed?
FireLyte--spyre (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly contentious: Plato talking through Socrates 

message: Sophist should have its own page and not redirect to sophism.
The sophism article should solely focus on sophism (intentional fallacious argument).
In addition to being more accurate, this division would eliminate the discrepancies that currently exist between the French and English version of the article.
Currently, 
* the English article on Fallacy is matched with the French article on Sophisme (French for sophism),
* and the English article on Sophism is matched with the French article on Sophiste (French for sophist).
This is misleading and inaccurate. Sophism is a form of fallacy and should perhaps be described in a subsection of the Fallacy article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.215.6.53 (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering these, should we not add a  to this page? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language discrepancy and misleading redirect 

message: The term has become a favorite of the anti intellectual, and in recent years has often used to discredit a legitimate argument , claim, or especially a question.
Examples.
“I oppose the gay lifestyle’
“What exactly is the gay lifestyle?”
"The Federal Government should not be imposing mandates on school curriculum"
"Can you tell me what mandates you are refuring to ?"
The person asking such a question is often incorrectly accused of “sophistry” for simply asking the person making the statement to define a term they invoked, or to give examples of a claim they made
Not sure how, but this frequent misuse should be inserted into the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of “sophism” has become a tool of the anti intellect 

message: It is about time someone sorted it out. I don't feel qualified myself, but if it doesn't change, then I might have a go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.66.117 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is so biased, it is untrue

message: I plan to remove the "sophist" --> "sophism" redirect, so that links to "sophist" no longer redirect to this article.  I will discuss plans for editing the "sophist" article on that article's talk page, and I invite other interested users to contribute to that discussion as well.TJLaw (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fwiw, there's also a sophists redirect... Shouldn't that be changed too? Also, since "sophist" no longer redirects to this article, maybe a direct link to it would be warranted here (either in the lead text of the first section, or as a )? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans to remove redirect 

message: I have copied much of the material in this article that has to do with the sophists, and put it into the article "sophist." Most of this material should now be deleted from "sophism." It should be replaced by information from primary and secondary sources that elaborate on the ancient definition, origin, and usage of the term "sophisma." If no one has any objections, I will soon remove the duplicated material and replace it with material that is more relevant to the historical definition of sophism (which is related to, but not identical with, the teachings of the sophists).TJLaw (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate material to be eliminated and replaced 

message: Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia does not have a section on Sophistry?
78.147.85.28 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The black art of Sophistry 

message: For some reason the article is not linked to "sophism" in other languages (e.g. סופיזם). I have tried to do the connection manually but got an error. Can someone with more experience help?
--132.64.128.185 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other languages