Talk:Neuroepistemology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neuroepistemology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Protein episteme was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 January 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Neuroepistemology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Epistemology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

deletion of random content[edit]

Neuroepistemology is a small, but legitimate research topic within academic philosophy. Protein epistemes and the actual material under discussion are not. They do not exist in the literature. The material is absolute nonsense, and clear original research. That this is the case has been repeatedly noted below in the assorted merger/deletion debates. Please do not re-include.

Advocata (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Working hard and trying to improve the page, starting by the "lead section". Also, considering to split contents into sub-articles and/or condensing it. Creating new links for explain the components of this reliable neuroscientific method, approaching critical insights to analyze brain functions.

We will modify critical concepts on diverse topics of this field. Finally, we are aware and respectful about the Wiki-deletion policies.

We are trying to fulfill with all this rules. Also we understand the relevance of this advise: this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 03:51 on 17 January.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge per AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein episteme. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Protein episteme, as well as a number of other articles by the same author, such as Deconstructive pragmatism be merged into Neuroepistemology. I think that there is a large amount of overlap between the contents of these articles, and that the contents of those articles could be merged into this one. Bensci54 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that there is a lot of overlap between those articles. Unfortunately, not one of them is close to being comprehensible and none of them seem improvable. The topics may be notable, but the articles are irredeemably flawed. I therefore oppose this proposal, merging loads of bad content together will not result in anything better than what we already have. Too bad that you didn't wait until the AfD for this article had run its course. I have now taken the other articles to AfD, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first task is making comprehensible these topics, starting from neuroepistemology page. Among many notions, choosing only Deconstructive Pragm, and the TNE (explaining protein episteme). Originally my dear Bensci54, such subjects were merged into neuroepistemology page, but thinking in Randykitty suggestions and according with WP, were created other subpages to make more easy the reading, indeed constantly improving it, until reach the consensus. Thanks to both of you, your presence is worthy. --Karol Alexandre (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. There is no justification for multiple articles of this sort. They should either all be deleted, or merged into the new start-from-scratch stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Focus[edit]

The paragraph:

Philosopher Patricia Churchland has written about the topic and, in her book Brain-Wise, characterised the problem as "how meat knows".[1] Georg Northoff, in his Philosophy of the Brain, wrote that it "focuses on direct linkage between the brain on one hand and epistemic abilities and inabilities on the other"

was merged in the section "Inception of neuroepistemology".

Several researchers have approached critical topics involved on neuroepistemology, supported by the three arguments of TNE. These arguments are promoting pragmatic courses and scientific methods on neuroepistemology to solve thorny problems on philosophy of mind and neurophilosophy, considering a vast bibliography and objective research with experts in this subject matter.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the page about critical topics as (Inception), and using the didactic map for explaining central ideas of neuroepistemological inception, the introductory paragraph that somebody is uploading and copy-pasting from google search, was again updated.

Philosophy of the Brain: The Brain Problem

books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=1588114171

Georg Northoff - 2004 - Philosophy

The Brain Problem Georg Northoff ... 'Neuroepistemology' focuses on direct linkage between the brain on one hand and epistemic abilities and inabilities on the other. ...

This update show this change today, respecting the note, and justifying the antecedent "naming the word neuroepistemology". Currently, this topic is displaying solid and wealthy basis with updated bibliography, reaching neutrality.

Georg Northoff, in his Philosophy of the Brain, wrote that it "focuses on direct linkage between the brain on one hand and epistemic abilities and inabilities on the other"; indeed only referring to an eventual “epistemology of the brain”, as an early antecedent concerning “first, second and third person epistemology” adding the concept of embedded epistemology [82] (see FTQ).

Thanks for your help. --Karol Alexandre (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]