Talk:Philosophy in Malta

File:Rispoli.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rispoli.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Manuel Dimech.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manuel Dimech.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Serracino Inglott, Peter.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Serracino Inglott, Peter.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Vella, Constance.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vella, Constance.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Demarco, Joseph.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Demarco, Joseph.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Muscat, John Nicholas.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Muscat, John Nicholas.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Nicholas Zammit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nicholas Zammit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pirotta, Angelo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pirotta, Angelo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Camilleri, Nazzareno.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Camilleri, Nazzareno.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Vella, Mario.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vella, Mario.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of article - clearly biased and no more than promotional material

I suggest the removal of this article.

The article clearly [and disgustingly, might I add] goes against the policies of Wikipedia. While I cannot be 100% sure who the author is, I have my suspicions, which any intelligent reader would certainly share.

In any case, and not to base the suggestion on an ad hominem, the article is below par for many reasons:

firstly, it is heavily biased, and more of an opinion than an "objective" article (see "references"; most of the article is taken from works by Priest Mark Montebello, a maltese writer and philosopher); secondly, it actually contains advertising! The article blatantly promotes a course which is currently being offered by the University of Malta by (guess who!) Mark Montebello! thirdly, in order to beef up the list of "prominent Maltese philosophers" the article includes any tom, dick and harry who has ever pronounced anything even remotely philosophical. Some of the people in the list are "professional" philosophers (Kenneth Wain, Joe Friggieri) but others, albeit famous in their respective fields, are not. A clear case is Edward de Bono - indeed if one follows the link there is absolutely no mention of him being a philosopher.

And finally, the list, which is eerily similar to one previously posted on a youtube video by (guess who!) Mark Montebello is biased: putting Kenneth Wain and Mario Vella (and De Bono, who ironically is not even a philosopher!) under the heading of Major philosophers while placing Joe Friggieri (current chair of philosophy at the University of Malta) as "minor" hints at personal bias and possibly personal grievance.

(Incidentally I agree with the placings [vis-a-vis Prof. Friggieri] as far as Kenneth Wain and Mario Vella are concerned; nevertheless, for the sake of article fairness and objectivity the classification is illicit - there is nothing which warrants a clear cut verdict. We are not talking here about Dante and, say, Andrea Camilleri; what we have here are three professors with fairly "equal" credentials. I have deep suspicions that the classification disguises underlying political motivations.)

I would think that most of the rest of the material is genuine and useful, but at this point I have lost credibility in the author.

Sapienza (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with deletion of this article. It does nothing more than reproduce both content and method of the writings on the subject by Mark Montebello, writings which themselves are of dubious quality. I say that it should go as well as all the other articles it links to nobodies most of whom did no more than write some sort of compedium for their students.

Demdem (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. Of course, I have an interest in not seeing the article being deleted, since I was the one who submitted it in the first place. Thus, I will take up the objections one by one:

1. References are mainly from works published by Montebello because only Montebello published extensively about philosophy in Malta. Any other published material not by Montebello of which I am aware of, even if much less comprehensive than the former ones, is also referenced. If this seems to you biased, I will be very pleased to see more references made by you to published works concerning philosophy in Malta. We all stand to gain for this.

2. The article does not contain advertisements. It may have had, indeed; but it was rightly edited, and that was that. Such improvement is welcome.

3. The lists of philosophers do not include any Tom, Dick and Harry, or "nobodies", as they have been called. Philosophy took various forms and guises along the ages, sometimes dealing with themes and subject-matter which today would not be considered to be philosophical (theology, for instance) or even scientific (such as astrology). Nevertheless, they certainly were considered philosophical in their days, and this has to be respected. Philosophy, you will agree, is basically about method rather than content.

4. With regard to Edward de Bono, it is true that it can be discussed whether he is a philosopher or not. Nonetheless, the more optimistic opinion is that his method, rather than, say, psychological or physiological, is philosophical. That's why he's included in the article. Now, with regard to his link, well that had been prepared before this particular article on philosophy in Malta existed, and it was thus left virtually untouched, as also with other links, such as those dealing with, say, Oliver Friggieri, Joe Friggieri, Peter Serracino Inglott, and others.

5. The classification into major and minor philosophers, particularly in the Latter Part of the 20^th Century is based on the qualitative overall content analysis of the published works of the respective persons concerned. It is not a question of credentials in any academic sense, but rather a value judgement made in relation to philosophical output and production, at least where publications are concerned. There is no personal bias, personal grievance and/or underlying political motivations in this. Having said this, if anyone would take it upon him/herself to amend the list while giving sound reasons for doing so, of course based on the philosophical examination of all published works involved, the improvement will be most welcome.

6. Finally, what is exactly meant by the statement that Montebello's "writings" (publications on philosophy in Malta, I presume) are "of dubious quality"? Such a serious allegation, I submit, must either be reliably substantiated or altogether withdrawn.

--Katafore (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. The charge is not that the article focusses on Montebello ignoring others' contribution to the subject. Fact is Montebello is almost the only person to write on this. That, of course, is not something to be held against Montebello. Indeed, most issues here can be solved by having another article dedicated to Montebello making it clear that some of the most controversial ideas expressed here are his rather than expressing a wide academic consent.

2. Regarding WP:ADVERT, yes the article is much improved. What still requires fixing in my view is having a picture of the cover of Montebello's latest book on the subject. It would not be out of place in an article on Montebello (see my point 1) but here it looks like advertising.

3. The issue is not whether the people mentioned here would be considered "philosophers" in their days but whether they satisfy Wikipedia criteria (in this case WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ACADEMIC). Most of them would clearly fail and while they might get a mention in a general article they are far from deserving their own article. That, however, is an issue which is best taken up in the individual articles.

Most of the history section post-2004 fails the criteria of WP:FUTURE.

The article needs also to be edited to bring it in line with WP:RELEVANT and WP:DUE. There is no indication of the relevance to the history of philosophy in Malta of the section dealing with pre-1530 and remarks about the British colonial administration being "racist", to mention but two examples. Again, these points would be less out of place in a specific article on Montebello.

4. De Bono's is a case in point. As far as I know, nobody, not even the most ardent supporters of lateral thinking, considers him a "philosopher" except for Montebello and de Bono is someone who's internationally known so he's hardly hidden from view. Again, this is something that might be solved by having an article on Montebello.

5. On the separation in "minor" and "major" the issue is not bias but WP:ORIGINAL. Did I say something about having an article on Montebello.

6. My opinions on Montebello's work on Maltese philosophy/Philosophy in Malta are out of place here especially as the question is raised by a third party. But here goes: Montebello himself lowered the bar pretty low to ensure that even people who in an entire career penned only a set of notes or compedia make the grade. And when someone like Dimech even fails that very undemanding requirement he is still let in for having read Bentham and Stuart Mill. If that is not compromising quality I don't know what would. In any case, putting the quality of works of philosophers into question is hardly unknown or considered slanderous.

Demdem (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of article

It is refreshing to learn that the article has been much improved. Of course, that's the whole idea, after all, of editing and having talk pages. Each point mentioned about is worth consideration, and that's precisely what will be done. --Katafore (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits per WP:RELEVANT and WP:DUE

Further to the point I made above, in order to bring this article in line with WP:RELEVANT and WP:DUE I am making the folloing changes:

1. The replacement of the introductory party of the "Short History" section with a link to the History of Malta article as the main article. All that is contained in this section introduction appears in the main article.

2. Political circumstances related to the expulsion of the French and the arrival and colonial rule of the British are not relevant in this article.

Demdem (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits per WP:FUTURE

As explained earlier in this talk page, in order to bring the article in line with WP:FUTURE, I'm removing the sub-sections "1.6 European Union Period (2004–Present)" and "Moving forward" as their content is all speculative.

Demdem (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New and improved article

I am glad that my contribution started a constructive discussion and the article has seen some improvement.

Here are my responses to the "6 points":

1. I am glad that other references have been introduced and welcome the idea of having a separate article.

2. Agreed.

3. I myself never referred to the people listed in the article as any Tom, Dick and Harry, but rather as "any tom, dick and harry who has ever pronounced anything even remotely philosophical", which is significantly different. I would think that philosophy, as a subject, is about both method and content, though admittedly, since philosophy is about everything, or rather everything is part of philosophy, we could say that it is more about method than content. After all, "what is philosophy?" is itself a very valid philosophical question.

Nevertheless, their being "considered philosophers in their days" is irrelevant: there are a lot of thinkers who were considered philosophers in their days and still are: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, all the Pre-Socratics, etc. These are philosophers: thinkers who were considered philosophers in their days and whom we have no trouble still considering as such. If we are to consider as philosophers (by today's standards) any thinker (on any subject) of the past, the list would be endless, seeing how Science - including the social sciences and economics - as a branch in its own right is a relevantly new concept and entirely alien to antiquity.

Therefore I still believe the list should undergo proper scrutiny. Which brings me to the next point.

4. By no stretch of the imagination can De Bono be considered a philosopher. Especially if we are to agree that philosophy is more about method than content. If anything, De Bono is an anti-philosopher, his method being unphilosophical in the extreme and riddled with assumptions. On these assumptions he bases his "solutions". For instance, he denounces language for carrying dangerous myths: nowhere does he question whether myths are in fact dangerous (most philosophers thought otherwise and have respected the importance and significance of myths). De Bono bases all his work on the notion of "progress", the definition of which is, once again, unphilosophically assumed. I would say that De Bono's method is too pragmatic even for the most ardent pragmatic philosophers.

I therefore propose his exclusion from the list.

5. "The classification into major and minor philosophers, particularly in the Latter Part of the 20th Century is based on the qualitative overall content analysis of the published works of the respective persons concerned." - which "qualitative overall content analysis" exactly? Any links or references? "It is not a question of credentials in any academic sense, but rather a value judgement made in relation to philosophical output and production, at least where publications are concerned." - whose value judgement, exactly? Yours? Joe Friggieri published a lot of fiction "rich" in philosophy.

I say we keep the list as is, without "major" and "minor" classifications since that would entail an exercise rife with subjectivity, and given that all of them are, in a sense, minor philosophers.

6. I don't get what Demdem means when he states that "the question is raised by a third party" - I never said Montebello's writings were of dubious quality and indeed these were words used by Demdem himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapienza (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Bono

It seems that only one point remains pending from the long discussion and after the improvements made to the page: it is the suggestion to remove any mention of Edward de Bono since, as Sapienza for one maintains, "by no stretch of the imagination can De Bono be considered a philosopher". The contrary is the case. There is no need of any 'stretch of the imagination' to consider De Bono a philosopher, especially (as Sapienza him/herself stated) "if we are to agree that philosophy is more about method than content." Precisely so. De Bono's method is definitely philosophical, and can clearly be distinguished from any physiological and/or psychological reasoning, or that of any other empirical or experimental science or discipline. Indeed, his philosophy (contentwise) can be seen to be grounded upon such reasoning. Nevertheless, his method of logical procedure is philosophical. That De Bono's "method [is] unphilosophical in the extreme", as Sapienza maintains, should probably be taken as a totally uninformed conclusion.

That De Bono's method is "riddled with assumptions", as Sapienza upholds, is no basis for not considering him to be a philosopher. Many other philosophers - including very big ones (such as Kant, just to mention one) - have had such a failing. (This is no endorsement of Sapienza's claim.)

Sapienza says that "De Bono is an anti-philosopher". I take this to be a statement concerning both De Bono's method and possibly the fact that De Bono himself refuses to be called a philosopher (at least in the way he understands the term). With regard to method, objections have been answered above. On the second point, many other philosophers also refused to be given the appellation, including, for instance, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, etc. That, however, held nobody from calling them thus. In this context, it might be of interest that De Bono himself endorsed contributions which give him this appellation, as, for instance, in the case of http://www.thinkingschoolmanila.com/dr-edward-de-bono.html. De Bono might be called an 'anti-philosopher' only in the sense of how he understands philosophy, that is, in the traditional (Platonic/Aristotelian) way.

To call De Bono's method "pragmatic", as Sapienza does, is not knowing either what pragmatism is or what De Bono's philosophy is.

With regard to a further claim (made earlier in some preceding contribution) that no-one holds that De Bono is a philosopher, it might be pointed out that some significant websites (just to limit oneself to easily accessible data) state the contrary. One might check out, for instance, the following:

• http://www.news.com.au/technology/i-dont-want-to-be-bullied-by-information-edward-de-bono-says-social-media-makes-us-stupid/story-e6frfro0-1226157280438
• http://bookleenex.tumblr.com/post/4212585644/philosopher-edward-de-bono-on-lateral-thinking
• http://othersociologist.wordpress.com/tag/edward-de-bono/
• http://www.meathvec.ie/en/index.cfm/go/news_one/news_key/159
• http://bighominid.blogspot.com/2011/10/edward-de-bono-vs-sam-harris.html
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1713939.html
• http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-1713939/edward-de-bono-philosopher-lateral-thinker-in-des

If these are not enough, it may be noted that De Bono is expressly called a philosopher by none other than the official site of the University of Oxford. What supporting evidence can one have better than this? See: http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/oxford_people/famous_oxonians/index.html.

In conclusion, De Bono should definitely stay on the list.--Katafore (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I can assure Katafore that I do know what pragmatism is, and De Bono's approach is as pragmatic as it gets. Failing to see that puts serious doubts on the credibility of the author's knowledge on the subject. Since we're in the habit of providing links, let me link you to Wikipedia's own article where Robert J. Sternberg, whose critique has some affinities to my own with regard to De Bono's method, describes the approach as pragmatic. De Bono's own website refers to this perception: "Dr. de Bono has been lumped into what is known as the pragmatic approach to the study of creativity. His focus is on seeking actionable results. According to Sternberg and Lubart (1999, p. 5) "He's been considered the foremost proponent of this approach and his work has had what appears to be considerable commercial success. Edward de Bono is concerned with practice, not with theory", and whereas I may grant that the paragraph might betray a feeling of injustice being done to the man through such a label, it is nevertheless the way he is seen. Incidentally, it is also the topic of the first entry in the "Talk" section of the same page.

Now I contend that De Bono's methodology is not philosophical. Simply stating that "the contrary is the case" and asserting that his "method is definitely philosophical" does not invalidate my view and is itself quite an unphilosophical approach. A "method of logical procedure" might be deemed philosophical but does not make one a philosopher as much as it does not make a field which adheres to the laws of logic a "philosophy". If it were so all science and scientists would earn the nomenclature. As I said in my previous post, and as everybody knows, science is, in a sense, a branch of philosophy, but then so is everything else. We are here referring to philosophy in the strict sense of the term. And in that sense most scientists, despite their rigorous logical methodology are not philosophers.

Saying that Kant's philosophy is riddled with assumptions is not only ridiculous but also betrays the author's lack of understanding of the subject and the philosopher. Kant's philosophy is actually built on the need of delimiting any assumptions (being a bridge building exercise between the empiricist and idealist schools of thought) - his assumptions, and for which his philosophy has faced much criticism, are limited to the categories, and even then Kant showed an interest in investigating them. His conclusion was that one cannot investigate the categories which is significantly different from not wanting or attempting to pursue a philosophical investigation of a subject. Indeed Kant's assumptions are a result of this philosophical investigation, which is what makes Kant an entirely different thinker than the likes of De Bono. The latter purposely rejects the philosophical method.

De Bono himself rejects the appellation and not in the manner, as is being suggested, that other thinkers have contended it. De Bono is quite adamant and clear (and rightly so) that his method is not philosophical. By the by, Plato and Aristotle have indeed set the ways of modern day philosophy (and the two contrast starkly). Simply because De Bono has "created" a new methodology does not necessarily mean that this methodology is worthy of being called philosophical.

As for the links I am not much impressed: they are websites rehashing a generic description and I hardly think they gave much thought to the matter. The only interesting link as supporting evidence is the Oxford page. I contend their decision nonetheless. After all, we have not been made privy to their criteria (I suspect there is none apart from the fact that De Bono has a D. Phil (in medicine) which would make many people philosophers). The point of wikipedia is to provide accurate information not rehashing what there is available despite of its correctness. Now I can obviously accept that some might view De Bono as a philosopher (for that is a fact) but that does not mean I am convinced of their view. The people of Oxford have offered no reason for their decision, and Katafore's arguments have been entirely unconvincing as I have clearly shown in this post. Therefore I am bound to agree with the description offered in Wikipedia's own article about the man which does not describe him as a philosopher. (It would be interesting to pursue the matter there, and check whether the omission was intended or merely an oversight.)

And so therefore the objections raised have not been answered and the matter is anything but closed: I reiterate that De Bono is not a philosopher and should in fact be omitted from the list.

Sapienza (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thank Sapienza for the opportunity of this interesting discussion.

To begin with, as to pragmatism I submit that both Sapienza and I are right. In the final analysis, De Bono is indeed concerned more, though not exclusively, with practice rather than with theory. This makes him a pragmatist in the popular sense of the word (as Sapienza seems to contend). On the other hand, however, the conceptual building blocks of Pragmatism, which basically relate to ontological truth-criteria, are missing in De Bono (and this does not make him a Pragmatist in the technical, philosophical - methodological, if you like - sense of the word). Whatever the case, this is not the main point of this discussion, anyway.

Neither should it be our concern here what is the nature of Kant’s assumptions, or in what sense some philosophers refuse to be called philosophers at all. Such matters were only mentioned in order to answer some points made earlier. They are not essential to our discussion here. The same goes for the indicated links (which were only provided to show that the proposition that nobody considers De Bono to be a philosopher had been, at best, inaccurate).

What is our main concern here is whether De Bono might be considered to be a philosopher. This issue is no easy matter to decide, and might also be posed in relation to other so-called philosophers. To start attempting to solve the puzzle I think it must first be determined to what areas of philosophical enquiry De Bono connects most. Most probably, since he primarily deals with the nature and scope of knowledge (including its possibilities and limitations), the area he bonds with most is gnoseology (or epistemology). It is from here that he seems to move onward to other areas such as ethics and logic (plus some others which are not of a philosophical nature, as business management, politics and economics would be, for instance). In particular, within the area of gnoseology, De Bono seems to be chiefly concerned with philosophical cognition (very much in line with the main drift of what Kant indicated in his Critiques). As can be noticed, De Bono does not deal with this field as a psychologist or a physiologist would. Though he accepts the use of the scientific method, he does not rely on, say, introspection as a valid method of investigation (as psychology is wont to do), or on any kind of anatomical or morphological examination (as a physiologist would do). Moreover, he acknowledges the existence of internal mental states (such as belief, habit, desire, idea, logic, knowledge, motivation, etc.). These two approaches, at least, distinguish his work from that of psychologists or physiologists.

Furthermore, De Bono’s procedure thoroughly adheres to the canons of probabilistic rationality in the philosophical sense of the word. This is qualitatively and substantially different from any experimental process. It is centered upon arguments(not empirical facts in the strict sense of the word, but ideas) through reasoned and supported statements using non-monotonic logic. This makes him a philosopher.

At this point, perhaps a question that might help elucidate further this issue could be: If De Bono is neither an empirical scientist nor a philosopher, then what is he? --Katafore (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Repetition

The section "Some Maltese Philosophers" seems to do little more than repeat -- in bullet form -- what was already said in the "Short History" section. I propose it is deleted as per WP:PROSE -- Demdem (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer the contrary, i.e., that this list be retained, and the the Short History be reworked. You are right; the list is a sort of a repetition (though not exactly). However, it is easy to identify names through a list. I can rework the Short History, eliminating the names, or, at least, a large part of them, and provide some more information relevant to each section. For the time being, however, I suggest that everything is left as it is in view of the modifications I propose. --Katafore (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, consider a stand-alone list, separate from this article as per WP:STAND. -- Demdem (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you provide a link as an example? Tks --Katafore (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An example: Maltese cuisine and List of Maltese dishes. The original article is Maltese cuisine and then a split was proposed and performed. It is important not to just create a new article and trasfer content; follow the how-to guide to performing an article split on WP:SPLIT. --Demdem (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I updated the page to exclude the repetition you referred to earlier. I prefer this solution for the time being. --Katafore (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)