Talk:Philosophy of mathematics/Archive 2

message: Hey.  This article is actually pretty good.  I don't know anything about the field and I found it interesting, at least.
:It was on the good articles list for a reason.  It will be back there soon once some of the material above is properly cited and integrated. 142.177.110.74
It seems to creep just a little away from NPOV against formalism.  (Keep in mind I have no idea what I'm talking about...)
: Formalism seems to have been crushed by, if nothing else, animal mathematicians. It was nearly as dead as logicism (quite dead) anyway.  142.177.110.74
It says:  "The main problem with formalism is that the actual mathematical ideas that occupy mathematicians are far removed from the minute string manipulation games mentioned above. While published proofs (if correct) could in principle be formulated in terms of these games, the rules are certainly not substantial to the initial creation of those proofs."  That just sounds like carping.  It's really an attack on reductionism in general.  When I as a programmer use a double, I generally don't have CMOS logic in mind, much less floating-point arithmetic, but that's hardly a "problem" for my reductionist "philosophy of how computers work".  Or is it?
:Formalism is based seemingly on greedy reductionism, trying to get more from looking at the givens than is there.  Your programmer problems are only an issue if you are relying on your abstraction to investigate the circuit's problems with processing your abstraction.  In other words, if you are trying to fix your Intel chip's errors but can't see those errors because all your debuggers are running on the buggy chips, then, you will see no problem.  How do you think Intel made that error in the first place? 142.177.110.74
: A separate article philosophy of how computers work would be hilarious as it would have to include naive views and how they arise.  Fun. 142.177.110.74
The last sentence of that paragraph is:  "Formalism is also silent to the question of which axiom systems ought to be studied."  This is a separate objection.  I don't understand it.  To the outside world, most of mathematics looks like basically unmotivated poking around; like pure science, it might yield rich practical applications at any moment, but if it doesn't, it's still considered valuable in its own right.  Are all mathematicians that pursue random axiomatic systems purely for the hell of it formalists?  Is John Conway a formalist?  (This is a serious question; I actually don't know.)  Is this really considered a "problem" in philosophical circles?
:Mathematicians often don't care enough about meta-issues to have any real philosophy.  Remember, P of M is a field that philosophers have to bug mathematicians to care about usually.  ;-) 142.177.110.74
I mean, the real problem with formalism (stop me if I'm missing the point) is that it completely ignores the relationship between mathematics and nature.  Right?
:Right.  Which becomes hard to ignore when you have parrots doing arithmetic and chimps doing rudimentary algebra.  Where does "nature" begin, then?  Who's in charge?  Etc. 142.177.110.74
In general, nice work.  Jorend 21:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about formalism (and its problems)

message: I am aware of the fact that people think this 'should' mean something different from "Philosophy of Math." (in the sense indicated here  and associated with Bertrand Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy"), but in practice it is used interchangeably with "Philosophy of Math."; e.g. Mathew Mount's "Classical Greek Mathematical Philosophy", etc. My experience has been that only those interested in Russell's work draw the distinction. At the least, the term should appear in this article.
JA: I don't as a rule champion many usages of BR, but the distinction in question hardly depends on him.  No doubt the two are used by some people in some contexts as synonyms, but more often in practice, as I said, "mathematical philosophy" means two other things (1) a project of doing philosophy more geometrico — Leibniz and Spinoza, if not indeed Llull, come to mind here — or (2) an individual practitioner of the dark art in question, and his or her particular "mathematical philosophy".  I have no objection to mentioning the term, if only to dispell the confusion, but I'm not sure it's worth waking the dogs at the top of the trip.  Jon Awbrey 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was in the same post as the math. phil. comment but I didn't call attention to it in the edit summary, so it was reverted too. I've put it back in; he is guilty of being a "mathematician doing (bad?) philosophy" but he and Davis are still alive which adds to the impression that this is still an area of interest. Hersh just put out a collection of math. phil. essays and spoke about his social views in conjunction with its appearance, for example. Anyway, I'll add something back in about math. phil. as a starting point for others to move/modify/etc. JJL 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any objection to Hersh.  The section on Aesthetics was put here so it could be reasonably rewritten and reinserted.  I could as easily have left it up as a stub or empty title, but it's here until it contains something worthwhile that's not just a speculative POV with a complaint about lack of an internal aesthetics police, or whatever the earlier editor was attampting to say.  As to the section on Ethics, I don't see a ligitimate place for it in this article, though i'm always open for correction if I missed something signigicant.  How about the ethics of carpentry, because carpenters were needed to build Los Alamos and Auschwitz?... Kenosis 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the Hersh comment and ref. under social approaches that was reverted with the math. phil. terminology change. I agree that the ethics section doesn't work well as written, but wasn't referring to that (hence the new topic). JJL 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it...Kenosis 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematical Philosophy

message: JA: JJL and M a s, please be patient, as I tend to work very incrementally, and need a nap now and then.  I will probably root out most of the awks and other infelicities myself, but there's a point to this that will have to be said one way or the other.  Naptime ... Jon Awbrey 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good night.  --M a s 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cut out some of the rambling that might be more appropriate for a book than an encyclopedia. I still don't see how the Peirce stuff fits in--what's the point that you're trying to make? Perhaps it would be best to work it out for yourself in a text editor before changing things here. This article has unnecessarily many edits, it seems to me. Then  you can work out the problems you see before submitting it where others will likely modify it further. JJL 04:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We disagree on what the actual usage is. It is factually correct that some people use them as synonyms. (I'm one of them, though I recognize that not all do as I do.) Suggesting as in your current edit that people like me are "confuse(d)" is simply rude and contentious. The terms mean what they mean. Do you distinuguish between political phil. and phil. of politics? JJL 04:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

message: JA: User X, please review the WP policy WP:VERIFY and the WP guideline WP:CITE.  WikiPedia is sourced research.  Failing to provide citations and references for statements is defective scholarly practice — deleting citations and references that others provide is simply inexcusable.  Jon Awbrey 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To cite or not to cite — Where's the question?

message: JA: Due to the fact that User X repeatedly removes or reverts the insertion of {citation needed} tags, I will create this place for documenting those requests for citations.  Jon Awbrey 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Assertion 1.  "The terms philosophy of mathematics and mathematical philosophy are often taken to be synonomous".
JA: Assertion 1, though inessentially mutated in its phrasing from time to time, continues to go undocumented despite repeated requests for a supporting citation.  Let me say that I have studied mathematics and philosophy of mathematics since youth, eventually achieving a Master's degree in the former, and the notion that these two phrases are as the Morning Star and the Evening Star is simply unheard of by me.  Now, I am poignantly aware of not having heard of ∀ ∃ 2b heard of, so if the asserter-inserter has a reputable source for this claim of generally accepted synonymy, then I would like to augment my information by hearing of it.  Otherwise, it will soon be necessary to quit shilly-shallying around and remove it as an unsourced assertion.  Jon Awbrey 02:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * Assertion 2.  "The original foundations problem in mathematics ('which branch of mathematics is the one from which others are derived?')"
JA: Assertion 2 amounts to a parenthetical remark that the "original foundations problem in mathematics" is a problem about "which branch of mathematics is the one from which the others are derived".  This sounds fishy to me, so I think that the reader deserves a source for the assertion.  Moreover, the statement links to a stubby article in WP which itself has no sources and provides no explanation of why it should be distinct from the article on foundations of mathematics.  Jon Awbrey 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: JA: As I understand the matter, it is extremely poor WikiPractice to revert edits without notification in the edit lines.  Whether this is done by returning to a previous version and then beginning one's own new edits there, or whether one simply reverses in the current version all of the edits made by others, it is effectively all the same thing.  This is what has occurred in the following transitions, where multiple edits of mine were effectively reverted by User X without notification of a revert in the edit line.  Jon Awbrey 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, you find it a justifiable practice when done by you but not when you feel it is being done by others. You revert nontrivial edits and also mischaracterize the edits in the history. I've tried to discuss this on this page and via the edit history. I served notice concerning 'this practice' above. When you simply reverted all edits, misused the edit history, etc., I tried to be reasonable and engage you in discussion. When you began vandalizing pages by mislabeling links ("Big Muddy"), I ceased trying to compromise with you and to engage on the Talk page. While it's amusing to now see you citing WikiScripture for your purpose, it doesn't change things. I've seen other vandals take this tack before. Goodnight, Irene. JJL 03:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undocumented Reverts

message: JA: I have placed a POV tag on the article.  User X continues to obstruct any attempt to add information to the article that does not meet with his/her personal approval, right down to the most minor details of wording and the types of citation data that are considered positively standard in all forms of sourced research.  Until these issues are resolved, this is no longer a WP Article but a personal essay by X.  Jon Awbrey 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: JA: I have placed a Verify tag on the article.  The reason given in the edit line is this:  "Not only is the article poorly referenced, but User X actively obstructs the use of proper citations."  Jon Awbrey 06:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify Tag

message: JA: When I was just a WikiPiddler, not so many moons ago, I used to go about "getting the red out" wherever I went, and I'm certainly not talking about my eyes.  Then some old hand WikiPelted me upside the head, and told me that WP was once very largely redlinks, and that's just the way that it knue where to grue.  So please leave 'em be, we are not the judge, jury, and x-ecutioner of who or what will be needed in future or not.  Jon Awbrey 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood and agreed, up to a certain point.  There still is the "redlink" tag for articles with too many.  As a third party reviewer on some articles that I have no stake in, if I see one that has too many redlinks, and too many irony quotes, too many prefaces of "so-called" I get the vibe of arrogance and/or crackpot-ness.  --M a s 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On suffering a red link to live

message: JJL, there was a discussion a while ago on G. H. Hardy about just this- how "dated" is the apology.  Some mathemeticians have argued that Hardy focused on maths being a young man's game (counter with Erdos,) or as mentioned in the article pure maths being good precisely because it's useles (counter with cryptography.)  If the sentiment is "pure mathemeticians love their job because it's useless now," rather than "pure mathemeticians love their job because it's useless" then maybe some wording would work.  Thoughts?  --M a s 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Hardy Talk page. What I want to communicate is that his distaste of math. being applied to war in particular and useful purposes in general wasn't just a distaste for number theory being applied to war. I feel that number theory was a good example for him then (plus, his own interest); perhaps today he'd talk about the uselessness of category theory. Does pointing out that his views are dated--I daresay, quaint--help advance the point regarding aesthetics that is being made here? What do we want to say about how Hardy's book relates to math. aesthetics? (Edit: Incidentally, what you have there now is fine by me. JJL 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardy

message: "This page is 45 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." The article doesn't actually seem overlong to me, but much more is needed regarding pre-20th century work (at the least). Any thoughts on how to cut it down? Most of the space seems to be going to the Schools, but each gets only a brief treatment here. I wouldn't want all that shifted off to another page. JJL 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: Why does Fictionalism start its own heading? Shouldn't it be grouped with other schools? I will try to re-organize this. (Edit: I like it better now, though it's hardly ideal. JJL 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictionalism

message: JA: I can't say that I'm fond of the usage, but italics are standard for the mention of phrases in WP, so we have to be more sparing than usual in using them for emphasis.  Jon Awbrey 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention & Use in WikioPolis 

message: JA: Will WP ever need a page for G.H.R. Parkinson, who translated, edited, and wrote an introduction to a volume of Leibniz's logical papers?  Being Neither God Nor His Prophet, I really cannot say.  But I am fallibly, finitely, and humanely guessing that infidels who have yet to imbue themselves with the accumulated wisdom of Wikipedia:Five pillars are not the ones to speak for what WP needs.  Jon Awbrey 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we link G.H.R. Parkinson to the Nile River, then? In the meantime, feel free to add pages for these people. I just did Paul Weiss, though much more needs to be done there. Otherwise, filling a page with redlinks isn't helpful. JJL 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Being Neither God Nor His Prophet 

message: First, there was nothing 'improper' about the deletion. However...focusing on one question in phil. of math. seems wrong for this article, and it also seems an awkward place to put it. At the least, I would place it after Historical overview. I do concur with Article_size that "[r]eaders may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles" and so I am leery of seeing someone starting a major new section. The stub tag suggests it may indeed grow large. I propose that, like the foundations article, this be moved to its own article. It could be something like Source/Origin of Math. It'd be nice to have discussions of all the major questions and schools of thought--but not on the main phil. of math. page. JJL 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. Any response to my attempt to discuss the new section you're starting? I wrote: "focusing on one question in phil. of math. seems wrong for this article, and it also seems an awkward place to put it. At the least, I would place it after Historical overview" and "I propose that, like the foundations article, this be moved to its own article. It could be something like Source/Origin of Math. It'd be nice to have discussions of all the major questions and schools of thought--but not on the main phil. of math. page" in an attempt to initiate dialogue on the point at hand. If there are other interested parties, they can speak up right here. JJL 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perennial questions

message: The historical overview looks like a good start... But the order is a little off.  The Pythagoreans (if they were) were the ones who threw out sqrt(2) into the sea.  (Socrates) Plato, then Euclid, demanded straight-edge and compass.  Archimedes and Appolonius didn't seem to care.  --M a s 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm working from memory until next month when my library and I are reunited. Right now it's more "at some  time someone believed this" unfortunately. I'll try to straighten it out and hope to add more. JJL 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  What do other philo of ... pages have?  And I guess just as importantly other encyclopedias?  I don't know myself.  I put the tag on with the concern that it would invite spurious claims of propriety.  Is there a weaker worldview tag that draws attention but allows for exceptions?  Thanks, --M a s 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at phil. of logic, language, science, physics, I saw only science having any mention of non-Western thought, and that was quite brief. Looking at Eastern_philosophy#Arguments_against_the_.22Eastern_philosophy.22_designation, I'm not sure what to say. But, comparing to other entries, I'd leave the tag off. It ain't right, but it's common. JJL 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical overview

message: That sound too much like the detailed mathematical question.  This should specify how the mathematical answer is interpreded by phylosophy.
JA: I have in the meantime generalized the notion of proof to include all forms of inquiry that play a role in mathematical practice, for example, analogy, conjecture, and others.  Jon Awbrey 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes a valid mathematical proof?

message: JA: I've been putting off the "relation between logic and math" question, as this is always the big fly in the ointment for foundations of maths.  So it's likely to be a bit rough at the outset.  Be gentle, be patient, etc.  Jon Awbrey 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bedeviled Chicken, Bedeviled Egg 

message: JA: Storing for future reference and abstracting a few long excerpts from Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (1919).  Jon Awbrey 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russell, IMP, 1919

message: JA: The use of the term "realism" is extremely problematic in this article, in the absence of any sourced or standard definitions flip-flopping back and forth between technical senses and non-technical uses at will with no notice of the severe equivocation involved in doing this.  I will add some sourced and standard definitions and leave it to others to justify the use of its "street" meaning in this context.  Jon Awbrey 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Realism

message: JA: The statement that "the terms philosophy of mathematics and mathematical philosophy are often taken to be synonymous" continues to go unsupported by evidence after repeated requests for citations.  The rest of the paragraph actually contradicts the initial statement, and the overall result is a wholly irrelevent distraction.  Moving it here until somebody thinks of a way to (1) support it (2) explain its relevance.  Jon Awbrey 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tried giving you time, working with you, etc. Moving one section seems to have led to a series of 'retaliatory' redactions of things I've written (like the hist. overview, which I said here that I'd cite in another week's time when I return to my books) and this section, which you and I had previously reached a compromise on. No discussion here first--just elimination of good faith edits while you rewrite the page to your stilted view of how it should be. We'll go back to doing this the hard way, since you seem unable to work constructively with others and unable to accept views other than your own. JJL 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Most of what you wrote for Perennial Questions takes a sourced quote and bases your personal POV of how things should be around it. All that needs sourcing. I note from this edit  that you have declared yourself an expert on the Truth and are now deciding who does and does not have access to the true Truth. People like you, who believe that their way is the only way, are the problem here. You're using WP's popularity to espouse your personal views and sense of 'humor'. Get a blog. You'll always have the Usenet Salute. JJL 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Paragraph:  Mathematical Philosophy

message: JA: Badiou is not a major figure in the philosophy of math, and the following account of his position strikes me as sheer gibberish, whose fault that is I cannot say, so I'll place it here until somebody can justify it on the grounds of (1) notability (2) sensibility.  Jon Awbrey 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Paragraph:  Badiou

message: JA: Though they share many tenets, I-ism and C-ism are really distinct movements, and require separate sections.  It will take a day or so to look up some primary sources and sort out which bits of text belong to which sections.  Jon Awbrey 05:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, this is correct and I'm glad to see them be split up given the current structure. On the other hand, I'm of the opinion that most schools of though can be grouped broadly under the headings of Platonism (or Realism), Formalism, and Constructivism, where those terms are construed rather more broadly than they are in the article. Given the article's length, I would prefer to see fewer separate entries and more Wikilinks to detailed discussions of these theories. Right now the list of different schools of thought is too forbidding for those who would benefit from this article. JJL 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intuitionism & Constructivism 

message: User:JJL and User:Jon Awbrey, please stop revert warring.  You're already both in violation of the 3 revert rule, and if either of you reverts again, I'll block both of you, until you each agree to chill out and pursue a more productive strategy.  If you can't sort it out between you, please seek outside opinion.  Please do not revert war. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. JJL 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JJL and Jon Awbrey - 3RR 

message: I think the list of References for this article has grown unnecessarily long. Compare, e.g., the corresponding list at Philosophy of Science...or even at Philosophy. The Philosophy of Math. article has about twice as many references as the general Philosophy article. I suggest we remove some. Do we need 5 separate Peirce entries (6, counting his father)? Do we need Bourbaki and Boyer on History of Mathematics? JJL 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anything against any particular reference--I just think this article has too many, and should be trimmed where possible. I don't want to remove needed references, but I suspect that 5 C.S. Peirce references is more than is needed, for example. I like Boyer a lot, but wonder if it's needed here. JJL 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why were the Eisele, Mount, and Keyser references added? Keyser in particular is not a very good reference for this article--it's very much one man's view, I believe. Mount is duplicative with Maziarz and Greenwood, for the most part (again, working without my books in front of me for a few more days). This seems like unnecessary padding, and adding Eisele continues the Peirce-heavy bias. I think the reference list is too long and should be weeded considerably, to match the style of the other phil. articles. JJL 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They aren't references that say math. phil. is phil. of math., they're examples of the use of the former to mean the latter. That isn't what  the references section is for. JJL 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim was that people use the terms interchangeably. The titles, combined with the stated subject matter, are evidence that the terms are indeed used interchangeably by many authors. No more was claimed. I will be without Internet access for the next few days and unable to respond to further trolling until I have finished traveling. JJL 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I previously cited the example of Mathew Mount, "Classical Greek Mathematical Philosophy", on this page. I've also referenced on the article page the book by Maziarz and Greenwood, "Greek Mathematical Philosophy", which discusses the changing nature of the Greek phil. of math. There is also Cassius Keyser, "Mathematical Philosophy", among many others. Of course, there are also books more specific to one working mathematician's views on math., but books like Carolyn Eisele, "Studies in the Scientific and Mathematical Philosophy of Charles S. Pierce" (M. Martin, ed.), are discussing the subject of a philosopher's phil. of math. From a review  of Korner's book: "a thorough survey of the issues in modern mathematical philosophy, see Morris Kline's Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty." At Questia.com, both math. phil. and phil. of math. go to the same page (phil. of math. [www.questia.com/library/philosophy/ philosophy-of-mathematics.jsp ]). Here's a St. Lawrence University course : "Platonic mathematical philosophy". At Wright State University, look at PHL424 Mathematical Philosophy : "Investigation of philosophical theories concerning the nature of mathematics, the ground of mathematical knowledge, the necessity of mathematical truth, the empirical relevance of mathematics, and the relationships between mathematical philosophy and general philosophy". At Oberlin College, someone is researching the origins of what has become the "Unreasonable Effectiveness" issue : "Numbers and Things: Nominalism and Constructivism in 17th Century Mathematical Philosophy". This looks to me like phil. of math., as he discusses natural phil. being mathematized, not general phil. Look here  for a College Math. Journal article: "New Thoughts on the Mathematical Philosophy of the Pythagoreans". From here , we have: "The study of the principles and the nature of mathematics is known as the philosophy of mathematics, or sometimes mathematical philosophy." The author is no expert, but the point is that they are used synonomously, not that they should be. From here : "the Tarskian classical correspondence theory of truth in modern mathematical philosophy" (emphasis in original). From this Word file : "Logicism – This is a mathematical philosophy " (emphasis in original HTML version ). They describe intuitionism and formalism similarly. From a University of Windsor seminar series : "A Whirlwind of Ideas in Mathematical Philosophy", which appears to discuss standard phil. of math. topics. From here : "Thought Experiments in Galileo and Newton’s Mathematical Philosophy". 
Others maintain a distinction: See the question about Russell's views here  or the review . Most of the exceptions I find are just those addressed in the article here: Those who take Russell's view or one like it, and those who use math. phil. when referring to a single mathematician's (or specific group of mathematician's) views. But the Greek math. phil. books above are about the views of philosophers, not mathematicians, over the whole classical period. (Granted, it was harder to distinguish a mathematician from a philsopher at the time.) There are many uses of math. phil. as a synonym for phil. of math., by authors and academics. I think the section should stay, and that it is supportable. I don't think a simple matter of definition such as this needs an in-article citation. JJL 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could these sources be added inline into the article?????? --Vesal 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonomy of Phil. of Math. and Math. Phil. 

message: This has at least been mentioned in the edit history, but I'm not sure it's been discussed on Talk: The leading 'the' isn't used in the Phil. of Sci., Phil. of Lang., etc., entries, so for consistency I think it should be omitted here too. JJL 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'the'