Talk:Explanatory indispensability argument/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 19:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 11:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shapeyness, it's nice to see another GA nomination from you. I'll have some comments ready soon.

Criteria 2a & 2b: everything in the body of the article is referenced and there is a list of references. The sources are reliable.
Criterion 2d: WP:EARWIG detects a few potential copyvios, but they are caused by either quotes or stock phrases ("in the philosophy of mathematics", "inference to the best explanation", "indispensable to our best scientific theories").
Criterion 5: The article is stable.
Criteria 6a & 6b: The article is illustrated. The images are tagged with their copyright statuses, are relevant to the article, and have captions. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, the mathematics must be playing an essential part in the explanatory work What about "Instead, mathematics must play an essential part in the explanatory work" ?
with hexagonal opening on the left-hand side add "a" before "hexagonal"
Another prominent case study ... is the hexagonal structure of bee honeycomb. "is" sounds odd to my ears in this context. What about replacing it with "concerns" or something similar?
so inclusion of mathematical concepts such as primeness assume the truth of the mathematics in question. I think it should be "the inclusion" and "assumes"
Sunflower seeds are produced separated by the golden angle, giving rise to spiral patterns which are the densest possible packing of seeds needs to end with a period
The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument supports the conclusion that mathematical objects exist with the idea that mathematics is indispensable to our best scientific theories maybe replace "our" with "the" per MOS:OUR Phlsph7 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Phlsph7! My editing style tends to be quite slow-going but hopefully I will get through with a few more of these at some point I think I've covered all of your comments, let me know if not - I was hesitant for the bottom one as this way of phrasing it is common in sources, but given it is only one mention I did change it. It does make me wonder if those kinds of sentences would fall under the acceptable exceptions to MOS:OUR though given "we" and "our" are used quite a lot in Quine–Putnam indispensability argument. Shapeyness (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. One might be able argue for an exception for the last point. But if there is a good alternative, it's usually easier to implement it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

Baker has responded to this worry by arguing that it would be impossible to provide direct evidence that periodical cicadas have had periodic predators because "periodicity is not something that can be gleaned from the fossil record". supported by Dieveney 2021 p. 60
The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument supports the conclusion that mathematical objects exist with the idea that mathematics is indispensable to the best scientific theories. supported by Colyvan 2023, Introduction
Baker argues that this is an explanation in which mathematics, specifically number theory, plays a key role in explaining an empirical phenomenon. supported by Colyvan 2023, §5
Colyvan has challenged these types of responses by arguing that fictional or metaphorical language cannot play a role in genuine explanations: "when some piece of language is delivering an explanation, either that piece of language must be interpreted literally or the non-literal reading of the language in question stands proxy for the real explanation." supported by Mancosu, Poggiolesi & Pincock 2023, §1.4;
The most influential case study is the example of periodical cicadas provided by Baker. supported by Molinini, Pataut & Sereni 2016, p. 320
According to Marcus, Colyvan's discussion of explanatory power was also initially restricted to its role within the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument. He credits Baker with originating the explanatory indispensability argument. supported by Marcus 2015, p. 130
Mary Leng also questions whether it is appropriate to model temperature or pressure as continuous functions across individual points on the Earth's surface. supported by Marcus 2015, p. 131 Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

Concerning the first sentence, I'm not sure that the average reader knows what the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument is. What about mentioning the relation to the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument later and including the main point of the argument in the sentence instead? Maybe something like "The explanatory indispensability argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of mathematical objects." Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, that gets across what the argument actually is a lot better too! Let me know what you think of the new wording. Shapeyness (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new wording. Having the focus on thesis of the argument itself is better than defining it as derivative of another argument. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of specific explanations proposed as mathematical explanations in science Maybe simplify to "Proposed examples of mathematical explanations in science" or "Proposed examples of specific mathematical explanations in science"

I reworded this, hopefully it's ok. Shapeyness (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It claims that we should believe in mathematical objects and according to Joseph Melia, we only need to believe in mathematics if it is indispensable in the right way. a few more possible violations of MOS:WE. They could be replaced with "one should believe" and "one only needs to believe" but I don't feel strongly about this so keep the current formulations if you prefer them.

I kept the we in the lead but added the word "rationally" to make it mirror the language used in the quoted argument a bit more, hopefully that's also acceptable. I reworded the use after "according to Melia" as suggested. I'll try to look over your other comments below soon. Shapeyness (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few other observations. They are probably not required for GA so feel free to dismiss them or address them at a later point.

I think it would be good to start the section background not with a paragraph on the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument but more generally with a paragraph on the philosophy of mathematics to explain why philosophers are interested in the existence of mathematical objects. This way, the readers get an idea about why they should care about the different arguments.
I'm not a big fan of sections named "Overview" since that's already what the lead is supposed to do. Possible alternative titles could be "Standard formulation", "Formulation of the argument", and "Central thesis".
Just noting that the section "Case studies" is longer than all the other sections combined. The article says that "much of the discussion on it has focused on evaluating specific case studies" so it may be acceptable per WP:PROPORTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: It's always hard to know how much to put in a background section and how much knowledge to assume of the reader. For this one, I assumed that most people would click through to this article after already reading Quine–Putnam indispensability argument or would already have some knowledge of the philosophy of mathematics (enough to know there is an explanatory indispensability argument to search for). I think more background could be something that is added later as the article is developed, but I don't think it is currently necessary for most readers that will come through. I renamed Overview to Overview of the argument, not sure if that addresses that one or not. Shapeyness (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the GA relevant comments have been addressed. For the remaining criteria:

Criteria 1a & 1b: spelling, grammar, tone, and layout are fine
Criterion 2c: spotcheck revealed no original research and I didn't encounter original research while reading through the article.
Criteria 3a & 3b: the article addresses the main points without going into unnecessary details

Nice work! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (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.