Talk:Nicholas Rescher

message: What's the problem here? All I could see that is somebody named Rescher provided a copyright-free image of Nicholas Rescher. It's hard to see much of a conflict there. Lou Sander 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the COI tag, since there was no response to the above for over seven months. I also removed the PEACOCK tag, since I didn't see any peacock terms in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI? 

message: APQ
Some mention should be made of NR's lengthy service as editor of the Amer. Phil Qty. It's arguably one of the top-rank journals in the field, and in his capacity as editor, NR surely had a greater than average influence on the directions that academic philosophy took. He was also unique among editors in his introducing each issue of that journal with a brief commentary, usually on the state of the discipline, under-reported topics, and so on (NR would usually write these with a sense of humor also not common to journal editors, much less scholars who've published 100s of articles). 
Eclectism
Also worth mentioning would be NR's long-standing interest in ethics, or social issues. That interest sets him apart from many who are generally known as philosophers of science or epistemology. E.g., one might list Rescher's book, Ethical Idealism, or his early essay on the allocation of exotic medical technology. The latter gives a sense of just how engaged NR has been, since it was written well before there was a great deal of interest in what is now regarded as a mainstream issue in medical ethics. Whether or not one agrees with what NR has to say in such works, he is notable for apparently never being afraid to "stray" from his primary interests of science, logic, etc. into more practical concerns. And one would have trouble trying to come up with one or two other names of scholars who have written on both counter-factuals (A Theory of Possibility 1975, Univ of Pittsburgh Press) and the need to ration medical supplies.
C d h (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions to list of accomplishments & pubs 

message: The Luck formula was not clearly defined in the Book.  Could someone please walk us through this formula and explain it to us.  Thank-you
Thank you Dr. Rescher...  Your work has the possibility to make our World a much better place.
Ward Campbell    Thermopolis Wyoming USA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.21.240 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luck Formula in SUVIVORS CLUB 

message: The wikipedia article introduces this accomplished author with an assertion ascribed to Marsonet that the sheer number of books has been a chief reason why Rescher has not been taken more seriously as an author. This seems to me to be quite an odd criticism of an academic author (especially where publishing is heavily encouraged) and rather irrelevant to the content of the author's life work. There are also more convincing reasons Rescher's work has not been discussed more among contemporary philosophers, which is most likely simply because the idealist leanings of the philosopher run against the vein of both the continental and analytic philosophical establishments. 
Is there a more informative way of introducing the author which does not include a statement which is empty and insulting (particularly towards anyone who come up with such a ridiculous criterion to judge an authors work)? 
I highly recommend that this quotation be removed from the introduction and replaced with a more insightful introduction to some of the content of Rescher's highly remarkable philosophical corpus.
:Wikipedia exists to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects. Michele Marsonet is a reputable academic who has published extensively on the subject, and according to Marsonet this is not an unusual criticism, but so commonplace as to be described as a leitmotiv. If it is that common, that makes it notable for inclusion. However, I have moved the paragraph from the lead, as its placement in the lead does lend it considerably more weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On criticism directed towards quantity of works 

message: Is there a reference, stating the 5. Jan. as date of death?
The provided reference does not show when he died.
KlarabellaQ (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death