Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enaction (philosophy)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. There seems to be disagreement here about deleting/redirecting the article, although everybody seems to accept that the subject is notable. Whether 1,2, 3, or more articles are necessary is not really a question for AfD. I suggest that the editors involved continue their discussion on the respective talk pages, whether or not this article should be redirected elsewhere can be discussed there. If necessary input from uninvolved other editors should be sought if a consensus cannot be obtained. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enaction (philosophy)

)

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

A second new article

Enaction or in the new article --Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No.. The topic of 'enaction' of this article is a specialized sub topic of the understanding of 'mind". Philosophers have contributed a lot to the topic, but it includes other fields too, notably neuroscience and psychology, and cognitive science. So a better title might be possible, suggesting a move of this material if a better name can be agreed upon. Perhaps it could be renamed
extended cognition already exist). It also has a lot in common with Situated cognition
, although that article is more focused upon application to educational methodologies.

This proposal for deletion suggests

extended cognition

could absorb enaction. However, to date, there is no agreement about this, and the word 'extended' is less apt than 'enacted'.

Until greater clarity is reached, deletion is not a good idea. That dawning of the light probably is not going to happen soon, and deletion of this content will introduce a gap in coverage on WP if this content is lost. It would be more desirable than deletion to arrive at a better name for the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brews, that it would be a loss to readers if this article were deleted. Not sure that it should be renamed though, as Enactive cognition would cover more than philosophy, e.g. biology, psychology, etc. Maybe we need an article like that. However, I think there is enough material to consider the philosophical aspects of enaction in e.g. perception, anti-representationalism, and the various critiques of the enactive approach from established philosophers.

The page has suffered from premature reversions, and needs time to recover. I favour trying to improve what others have written, rather than dismissing their thoughts. Most posts have something useful to say.

TonyClarke (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I don't think this is intended as a referendum on the material itself. Brews created a new article but kept this one too... We want to avoid a

Enaction/Enactivism mean something different in philosophy than it does psychology?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment/Question: Machine Elf expresses it well. The content as it stands is fine, but it now appears in two possibly three places ----Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think

Enaction (philosophy), an article in flux, TonyClarke's position is sensible. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to WP:POVFORK, but save the edit history for it's relevance to the numerous discussions.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd happily agree a redirection, then if philosophical use expands we can look at an article again. IN practice I think Philosophy is moving to the wider issue of distributed consciousness and enaction will be a small part of that but only time will tell ----Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, on redirection to
Enaction in the philosophy of Mind. Its first sentence does not define this subject, but instead is about psychology. Its second sentence is technical jargon not understandable to anyone but its author. Until this subsection is modified to provide an adequate definition and explanation, a redirect is worse than useless. Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Question: Brews you've proded it twice yourself, so you agree in principle to a redirect?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MachineElf: I suggested
Enaction in the philosophy of Mind in 'Enaction' and if that can be done (my uncertainties revolve around Snowded) then a redirect could be made. Brews ohare (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think this page should be deleted, renamed or redirected. There has been continued conflicts between the two main contributors, conflicts which are replicas of other conflicts between these two contributors on other entries. But that doesn't mean the page is invalid. I have done some foundational work, and was planning to further develop it. It is a valid subject in itself, so it should be kept. This uncertainty is caused by personal differences which need to be reconciled, or avoided, rather than deleting a page because of it. Get real, guys. TonyClarke (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony if you are prepared to make a real article of it fine, but if its just another coatrack (which it was when created) that is a different matter. And opposing OR is not a personal difference, get real please ----Snowded ^TALK 22:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also support your effort to take this page somewhere. Let's can this deletion proposal for now. Brews ohare (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to new title: It appears form the sources cited that
Enaction (philosophy) while of interest to philosophers contains a lot of material more appropriate to psychology, including neuropsychology and cultural psychology. For example, various theories of perception are described that belong in a lab, not a philosophy armchair. To give adequate scope to this material it should be moved to a more general topic name, perhaps Enactive cognition, a parallel to Embodied cognition. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree it needs to be moved but (i) the divisions between psychology and philosophy of mind are very blurred in particular how to interpret lab results. We also have people such as Freeman who happily occupy both worlds and there are others. The various Es are significant in modern philosophy and need treatment. Proposals to create a summary of article on that seem to be falling on deaf ears. We have an article on enaction, created one on inactive cognition would be a coat rack. What this discussion is showing is the need for a general agreement on the overall structure of how we treat this in philosophy and you charging around creating new articles with loose assemblies of quotations is not helping that. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your view of my "charging around" is your excuse for not engaging. You have turned your nose up at every suggestion, always proposing some distant day when you will descend from the mountain with your tablets. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does your suggestion address my
Zombie (Philosophical), for example, but this isn't one of them.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
MachineElf: It looks like the article involved in a fork is Enactivism, which also refers to Varela et al. Could you look at that and comment? Brews ohare (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Agreed, redirecting there would be good.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of
Enaction (philosophy). Should a rewrite of Enactivism be discussed here and now, before making a redirect? Brews ohare (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You'd need to keep arguing about the material under consideration on
WP:BOLD.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

What I mean to say is go ahead and try a merger which should suffice to carry on the lively discussion there...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf: Although your plan is one way to go, I don't think I am the right one to do it, as it would be taken as a hostile act. I think I will suggest some changes to Enactivism first, and see how they are received. That may make a redirect a more obvious choice. What do you think of that? Brews ohare (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support a redirect, but exercise caution in changes to Enactivism ----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "hostile" but I'm sure
WP:CITEVAR will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, and we better look to personal hygiene too, eh? Let's focus on the important stuff. Brews ohare (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enaction is a broad, interdisciplinary and emerging paradigm. It applies in biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas. Given the traditional and strong interests of philosophy in cognition (e.g. perception, reasoning, logic, ethics, illusions v reality etc.) then I think it is important that we spell out the important role of enaction as seen in philosophy. It is developing as a huge and important field, and we don't want to bury away our work in some side alley of another article. We need to put redirects to this article, not from it. My humble opinion. TonyClarke (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: As you note, "Enaction is a broad, interdisciplinary and emerging paradigm. It applies in biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas." The article
Enaction (philosophy) are a subset of Enactivism, and quite possibly warrant a separate article. However, at this juncture Snowded has not participated in contributing material about post-Cartesian thought, he has deleted reference to Husserl, made inaccurate statements about Kant, and taken other steps to marginalize this article. If it is to be retained, the philosophical developments need to find their way into the article, and the aspects belonging to "biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas" should be referred to where they provide examples for the philosophical developments, but otherwise be downplayed and left to Enactivism. Brews ohare (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

In this connection, the philosophical aspects in
Enaction (philosophy) as the Main article. Brews ohare (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

That sounds a good way forward Brews. I've never worked on an article where the conflicts between editors are so pronounced, personal and dominating the real business, which is to have useful information available to readers. I am exasperated at the apparent lack of agreement or even compromise between editors here, which appears to have become personal, and works against the principles of Wikipedia. TonyClarke (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: If you haven't seen this kind of thing before on WP, you've had a charmed life. Glad you see this proposal of two articles as a way forward. You will have to do the heavy lifting at
Enaction (philosophy), but I'll try to help out. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No: Eventually it may turn out that
Enaction (philosophy) is a good treatment of the philosophical issues related to Enactivism. At the moment, both articles are in flux, and it is impossible to arrive at a sensible decision on deletion right now. The deletion discussion should be terminated until things have developed further. Brews ohare (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

And by "No" you mean you've already started the merge.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: my position is that
Enaction (philosophy) will develop (future tense) into an article on (among other things) post-Cartesian theories of mind. But right now deletion or redirection is beyond our capacity for judgment, requiring a crystal ball, and maybe even the cooperation of Snowded. Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to draft it's in flux and if settles to something sane it can come back; if it doesn't settle to something sane it can die a natural death.
Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Brews has nominated WP:Articles_for_deletion/Enaction for deletion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merge to Enactivism has been completed, please redirect there.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf has confused the two articles
Enaction (philosophy) is as yet undecided. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't lie.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of lying is over the top, don't you think? Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's exactly what you've done.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to create a new
Enaction for deletion while you insist on keeping your own new version of the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no POV fork involved here. The present article
Enaction (philosophy), which is supposed to be all about philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Brews, you can't avoid the
Enaction for deletion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Distinction with no difference. The material from
Enaction belonged in Enactivism, a simple move to Enactive interfaces
didn't accomplish the desired result, and some changes in organization were needed as well, that a simple move could not accomplish. I have no idea why you find it important as to how the end result was obtained.

Somehow you are trying to suggest some evil motive behind all this activity, which was simply the implementation (by your request to me) of a consensus between yourself, myself, Bob K, and Snowded. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Melodramatic nonsense Brews. There's a button on the top of screen to move a page. It's very simple and you choose not to do that. You choose to delete
WP:POVFORK.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enaction_(philosophy)&oldid=1137827894"~~