Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loxley~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 28 December 2005 (→Loxley's response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for cabal mediation

Initial request

Request made by (please sign below):

Alienus 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

On a number of pages concerning philosophy of the mind, particularly those involving Daniel Dennett and ideas related to his theories. Specific hot-spots include Consciousness, Cartesian materialism, Cartesian theater, and Multiple Drafts Model.

Who's involved?

Me and loxley.

What's going on?

I found a number of gaps, as well as factual and bias errors on these pages, so I've worked to fix them, contributing substantial new material and providing references. Loxley disagrees with my changes and keeps reverting or damaging them in various ways. We're at the point where he just reverted a few pages of my work without comment.

It appears that Loxley strongly supports one warring camp of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, so his changes are largely focused on defining Dennett as negatively as possible. Besides the excess POV, he does not possess a clear understanding of Dennett's work, so he's also making numerous factual errors. I've done my best to merge in whatever good parts he's added, clarify things that could be misunderstood and generally put together better pages. His counter-changes started off as reasonable if flawed, but have progressed to simple vandalism.

I've tried to discuss this with him, but it has not been productive. From my point of view, he's been argumentative, unresponsive and very deeply biased. I've lost respect for him, and now just consider him a heckler who doesn't even understand what he's heckling at. I suspect that he found me impatient and, from where he stands, partisan. I freely admit that I am entirely out of patience with him, and he could probably point out responses where I failed to control my anger, especially after he started erasing key parts of pages just because he disagrees with them.

What would you like to change about that?

I want this this edit war to stop before it even gets into its full swing and triggers automatic protections against reverts. I'm quite willing to accept unbiased and supported changes by him., but I'm not willing to stand by while he ignorantly pisses on Dennett. I'm angry and disgusted.

Ideally, I would like to come to some mutual agreement so we can both positively participate in making these pages better. Precisely because he is so fond of people like Chalmers and Block, he could add balance by reporting on their views. However, as things stand, his contributons are of negative net value.

It may well be that our personalities class and he's more reasonable when dealing with other people. It may well be that I'm particularly impatient with him because I perceive him as intentionally damaging my work. If so, then a third party might be able to resolve this.

If not, then it's going to come down to blocking one or both of us from changing these and related pages, at least until this calms down.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'm not particularly concerned about discretion. I can be reached most conveniently by email, but you could also write to my talk page. If it helps, I ask me by email for my AIM account name. I'm located in the Eastern Standard Time zone.

Comments by others

Hi there! Before coming to any conclusions on this case I would urge the arbitrators to consider that the changes in dispute are quite small. Furthermore I would ask them to consider that the changes that I made are supported by quotations from the literature and they are not my own ideas.

The argument between Alienus and myself has revolved around only a couple of points. In Consciousness Explained Dennett has a curious style, rather than arguing against established philosophers and ideas he invents the "Cartesian Theatre" argument, the "Orwellian" theory and the "Stalinesque" theory and argues against these. I have tried to make this plain in the text and Alienus has reverted my changes. The first point, Alienus' text:

"Dennett contrasts this with a Cartesian Theater model of consciousness, in which events suddenly appear on some sort of mental screen and then disappear as quickly. He provides numerous examples to show that events are necessarily analysed over a period of time rather than instantaneously."

was changed by myself on 28th November to:

"Dennett contrasts this with the straw man of a Cartesian Theater model of consciousness in which events suddenly appear on some sort of mental screen and then disappear instantaneously. Like Cartesius, Kant and many other philosophers Dennett concludes that conscious events require a duration in which they are analysed."

The reason that I introduced "straw man" is that this is the standard argument raised by philosophers against his ideas. It is important for students to understand that Dennett made up the term "Cartesian Theatre" himself and then proceeds to attack it. Alienus immediately reverted this change. I argued my case in Talk and re-inserted the points about straw men. Eventually I inserted a separate section, "Critical Responses to Multiple Drafts" to allow Alienus to write the description of the model in his own way. In this section I included one of many possible quotes to show that philosophers regard Dennett's arguments as arguments against theories of Dennett's own invention.

On 28th November I told Alienus about the Cartesian theatre article. This article was written by independent contributors and supported the contention that Dennett was indulging in straw man arguments. (see cartesian theatre changes Alienus immediately changed the article to support his own viewpoint!

I noticed that Alienus had created and redirected Cartesian materialism as if it were identical to "Cartesian theatre". I went to the article and put in place a correct definition of Cartesian Materialism. Alienus then changed it to Dennett's disparaging and incorrect definition: change to cartesian materialism

It is clear that we are discussing quite minor changes here. I have introduced points that are supported in the literature and have reproduced quotes and references to support these points. I would recommend any arbitrator to read the talk for multiple drafts where Alienus uses condescending and insulting language yet refuses to consider the source literature at all.

Now, you could ask me to cease contributing but should we allow information from published sources, such as the definition of Cartesian materialism and the "straw man" answer to Dennett, to be suppressed simply because one contributor feels these are POV? loxley 10:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My interest is solely in creating encyclopedic entries that are correct. The points at issue are:

• Are the Orwellian and Stalinesque theories Dennett's creation?
• Is the Cartesian theatre Dennett's idea?
• Do other philosophers such as Block, Tye, Shoemaker etc. consider that Dennett is attacking a straw man?
• Is Cartesian materialism a pre-existing philosophical concept (ie: before Dennett)?
• Should Cartesian materialism be defined according to Dennett's disparaging definition or the definition of its supporters such as O'Brien and Opie?
• In terms of prominence in the consciousness article, is Dennett representative of mainstream philosophical thought or, as an extreme eliminativist, is he someone who deserves a peripheral mention?

These points summarise our disagreement. If Alienus agrees these points then my edits should remain in place, even though they undermine Dennett by portraying him in a less than flattering fashion. loxley 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you're accurately explaining the issue in the first place. Of course, that's the problem in a nutshell: we don't even agree on what we disagree on.

The article on the multiple drafts model is supposed to give a sympathetic but balanced description of Dennett's theory. Dennett's starting point is his argument that all theories with a Cartesian theater necessarily boil down to Orwellian or Stalinesque interpretations, and yet there cannot be a principled basis for choosing one for the other. Of course, opponents are going to argue that this is not the case and will instead assert that Dennett is attacking a straw man. The article should certainly report this as relevant criticism. However, it must not state that his critics are right, as that would be unsympathetic and downright POV.

Please look at the change logs. Our disagreements have been about the points raised above. I have made no statement that his opponents were right although I did change "Stalinesque" interpretation etc. to "Dennett's Stalinesque" or "his Stalinesque interpretation" etc.. But this was factual and correct. loxley 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, the whole point is that Dennett endorses neither Stalinesque nor Orwellian descriptions, hence it's not "Dennett's Stalinesque". Rather, Dennett is arguing that various Cartesian materialists are inadvertantly falling into the trap of using Stalinesque or Orwellian descriptions. I realize that you disagree with this contention, but that doesn't mean you get to muddy the waters. You are obligated to sympathetically report Dennett's stance, while likewise reporting relevant responses. Unfortunately, you have allowed your POV to get in the way of doing this. Alienus 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So you agree that Stalinesque and Orwellian are Dennett's own terms addressing his own construction of the Cartesian materialist position. It cannot be POV to draw this fact to the reader's attention, especially when this method of argument is the chief gripe that philosophers in general have expressed about "Consciousness Explained". A fact cannot be POV. Notice that I have not criticised Dennett's argument per se, I have reported the argument factually - these are his interpretations (ie: not widely held opinions that he has defeated). Surely it is POV to report Dennett's work in the way you have done which suggests that the Orwellian and Stalinesque interpretations are widely held opinions rather than drawing the reader's attention to these as Dennett's interpretations. loxley 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I already addressed this. Read it again until you understand it, then tell me what part you disagree with. Alienus 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Xmas Alienus. I couldn't resist returning to this whilst reading my emails. Where we are disagreeing is in the idea of a "straw man" argument. A straw man argument occurs when someone tries to prove a point by redefining an opponent's position in terms that can be defeated easily. The opponent will not usually agree with the redefinition. Dennett uses straw man arguments throughout "Consciousness Explained". As you point out yourself, instead of discussing the actual ideas of Cartesian Materialists he offers his own definition of the term then offers his own analysis of how a "cartesian materialist" would analyse an effect such as the phi phenomenon. Now, Dennett may be correct or incorrect in his analysis but we should point out that his argument is a straw man argument using HIS idiosyncratic analysis of phi and HIS idiosyncratic definition of cartesian materialism. I am not the first to spot Dennett's straw man approach - it is the standard criticism of Dennett's multiple drafts model (as I have shown in the references and quotes that I introduced).

I am not criticising Dennett when I edit the article to say HIS Stalinesque argument, I am being factual and drawing the reader's attention to the standard analysis of Dennett's work. You yourself have admitted that the Stalinesque and Orwellian analyses are due to Dennett. Notice that Dennett imputes these to others but offers no justification that other people have approved of these analyses. Do you really think that changing Stalinist to "his Stalinist" is factually incorrect, a POV or vandalism? If so, can you say why without digressing into how you believe Dennett's analysis is correct, the correctness of Dennett's analysis having nothing to do with this point because we are drawing attention to the type of argument being used, not its correctness in its own terms.

On the subject of Cartesian materialism I am not criticising Dennett when I replace his definition of Cartesian materialism with the standard definition - Dennett, with his straw man approach, cannot be used as a reliable source for a definition of a philosophical concept (that the mind is in the brain) which predates Dennett by millenia. Do you think Dennett, the arch enemy of Cartesian materialism, should be used as the source of its definition in Misplaced Pages when neutral definitions are available?

In my edit of the Cartesian theatre I point out that Dennett was not attacking Cartesian materialism with the regress argument (which applies to any closed or self referencing system) but defined an entirely new term, the "Cartesian theatre" which he then attacks. Do you think that my edit which points out that, in the cartesian theatre, he is not attacking the regress argument is factually incorrect, a POV or vandalism? It should be noticed that you have introduced Cartesian dualism into the Cartesian theatre article - surely this is a mistake - Dennett was attacking Cartesian materialism, the idea that the mind is the product of the brain.

Lastly, there are very few philosophers who do not adhere to some version of Cartesian materialism and nearly all neurophysiologists and biological scientists believe the mind is in the brain. Dennett is an eliminivatist, he does not believe in Cartesian materialism, this is an extreme position and as a result does not deserve prominence in the consciousness article. Or do you think that positions such as Dennett's that are held by a handful of philosophers world wide deserve equal mention with Block or Chalmers whose support can be measured in large percentage terms? loxley 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And a joyous Saturnalia to you. Thank you so much for making my point for me. You are longwinded, contentious and obtuse. I'm brief but rude. So, briefly if rudely:

1) To call something a straw man is to make a judgement about whether the description fits. It's not your job to judge against Dennett.

It is not my judgement, it is a judgement of many philosophers and was placed in a criticisms section. Please withdraw your accusation that I created this judgement.

2) Yes, it's quite POV to judge against Dennett by saying that Stalinesque theories are Dennett's straw man.

But you admitted yourself that Dennett created the Stalinesque interpretation then imputed it to other people's theories. Please withdraw your accusation of POV when both you and I agree on this point.

3) Dennett, as a critic of Cartesian materialism, should have his criticism included. Censorign criticism is, yes, you guessed it, POV.

Notice that his criticism is already included, but not as the definition of Cartesian materialism. Please withdraw this groundless accusation of censorship.

4) Arguing that Dennett's position is wrong or (without citation) unpopular is purely POV.

I did not argue that Dennett's position was wrong, please withdraw that accusation. The argument that Dennett's position, that the mind either does not exist or exists outside the brain, is in any way popular seems strange. Please defend your contention that many philosophers agree with Dennett's ideas. Marginal ideas do not deserve prominence in an encyclopedia article although they may be mentioned. Surely you agree?

In conclusion, you're so POV, it hurts. End the pain. Alienus 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please withdraw your accusations, I am not editing in a POV fashion, I am trying to ameliorate POV input.loxley 11:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also see the point about Cartesian marterialism below. This point is highly relevant because it again shows that you have treated Dennett's constructions as valid descriptions of opinions held by other philosophers. loxley 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the issue in hand, which particular edits made by myself do you feel are POV? loxley 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just one example of where I take issue with your changes. You systematically bias articles against Dennett's stance, which you neither agree with nor properly understand. Alienus 16:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be specific. What you have been doing is reverting my contributions with 'reasons' such as POV or 'vandalism' without addressing the fact that these contributions are attributed and sourced. Please be specific, perhaps we can start with Cartesian materialism - why do you believe that my replacement of Dennett's description of Cartesian materialism with a correct description was POV or vandalism? loxley 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

• Talk page messages left today at User_talk:Alienus and User_talk:Loxley; waiting on Loxley's response on this matter. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Initial mediator evaluation by Nicholas Turnbull

Right, well, thank you Alienus and Loxley for enumerating the issues at play in this case; I have a clearer understanding of what is happening in this matter now after having viewed this discourse.

No personal attacks

First off, let me ask both Alienus and Loxley to avoid making personal attacks to each other, both here on the Mediation Cabal pages and anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. I would like to ask, most humbly, that both parties remove any personal attacks that they have made either here or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages against each other. From WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

I think that, if this barrier was overcome and the issue of civility removed, more amicable discourse could take place on the substantative issues at play regarding this article - which are highly contentious, and thus require good communication in order to solve adequately.

Reconciling disparate points of view

What this basically appears to me to revolve around is, first and foremost, differing points of view causing conflict over article content. Secondly, it appears to also have a lot to do with interpretation and opinion based on the writer in question, Dennett, and his work. Alienus, in his dialogue here, has shown a considerable interest in defending Dennett's work, and likewise Loxley appears to have more of an interest in disparaging it. Both viewpoints are rather wide of the mark in this case, since of course Misplaced Pages:Cite sources states that all claims inserted into articles have to be sourced; likewise WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

It strikes me that one issue here which has possibly caused the greatest contention is that each party clearly considers the other's actions on Misplaced Pages to be "wrong" since they do not agree with the other's viewpoint. It must be taken into consideration that all Misplaced Pages editors may have their own viewpoint, but as per WP:NPOV that shouldn't have anything to do with what goes into the article. I invite the participants in the dispute to cease making judgements on each other's beliefs, and concentrate solely on the editing in question.

Content and original research

Basically, if arguments both for and against Dennett's work exist, the argument as to which is "correct" or "valid" is entirely superfluous; since it seems clear a genuine debate exists outside of the Misplaced Pages article, the answer is that arguments from all sides should be included as quoted references from legitimate sources. Therefore, one solution to this issue would be that both Alienus and Loxley refrain from inserting any unsourced material into the articles in question, and the only items added are reported or direct quotes of these sources (referenced properly, of course). Then, the dispute would to a certain degree become entirely moot. It does appear to me that a lot of editing on both sides of this dispute are original research - interpretations of Dennett's work, e.g. the Cartesian theatre argument - and thus can be quite easily brought to a close.

If the material added through editing is not sourced, then it shouldn't be there. If it is sourced, and is a proper quote, then it should. Ultimately the whole content dispute vanishes under this premise. I invite the parties in this dispute to read Misplaced Pages:Cite sources.

Interpretation and philosophy

Disputes of this character occur quite frequently on Misplaced Pages, especially on subjects of philosophy and epistemiology. The reason for this is that these subjects have a tendency to be rather subjective, since scientific "test and control" is difficult, if not impossible, to apply to solely ideological concepts. Because of this subjectivity, it is vital that all contributors avoid getting so emotionally involved and remember that Misplaced Pages is just a whole load of bytes that make up a document, just as Dennett's books are only paper with marks on them. I know this may sound juvenile and silly, but basically the world is not going to collapse based on arguments over philosophy, and I'd like to ask the participants to reflect as to exactly how important this dispute is in the grand scheme of life. There's little or no point in getting cut up and argumentative over all this.

Suggestion of a neutral party to review the page

I think probably a good way to bring this matter further to a close would be to appoint a neutral individual who doesn't have a particular side in the dispute to review the article and remove anything that appears to be original research (not adding or writing any new content, sourced or not). I won't appoint myself, since I need to remain impartial in my capacity as the mediator of this case; however, if the parties here are interested in this proposition, then I will arrange for this to occur.

Request for input on the above

I'd be grateful if the parties in this dispute, or even other people who aren't involved in the argument, would comment on the above in the "Response to mediator evaluation" section below, and we'll proceed from there. My apologies, incidentally, for the delay it has taken to analyse this case; it has taken me some time and effort to pick over the carcass of this argument.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to mediator evaluation

Alienus' response

I'll address each of your sections in turn:

1) Ad hom: I agree regarding personal attacks. The reason I brought this up for mediation is that I felt our discussions had gotten past the point where they were productive, and had simply become hostile. As for removing existing conversations, I'm not sure I want to do this yet, if only because I don't see any easy way to disentangle the facts from the insults. Maybe a better time to do such a cleanup is after these pages stabilize a bit. Then we can just archive the old poison pen letters away.

2) NPOV: As much as you suggest later that philosophy just isn't that important, this is a topic that does have some bearing on the real world, and that may be why people like Loxely and I get so worked up about it. I will say that, on the matter of Dennett's theories, there is little middle ground. People who've been exposed to them either agree strongly or disagree just as strongly. In other words, an NPOV article would have to come from the cooperation of POV editors, not from the intervention of a truly neutral but deeply interested third party.

3) Sourced: Early in our exchanges, I switched to letting quotes by Dennett and his various supporters and detractors speak for me. This worked well, until Loxely started removing quotes he disliked. He removed one for being too positive! Around this point, communication broke down. If it happens again, I will seek arbitration and have him removed from these pages for as long as it takes. Now, as for everything being sourced, of course, but we can't reproduce entire books here, so there's a need for neutral and accurate summaries. These summaries cannot praise with faint damns, twist the meaning or otherwise poison the well.

4) Interpretation: It sometimes surprises me, but people actually expect Misplaced Pages to have accurate information. They come here looking for the facts, and I want them to find only the facts when it comes to these issues. I am unhappy with the idea that innocent people are being biased against Dennett due to Loxley's hatred of the man.

5) Third Party: Sure, bring it on. With two people, it's too easy for it to simply become a reversion war.

5) Input: Though I don't necessarily agree with all your suggestions, I do want to thank you for taking the time to try to resolve this.

Alienus 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Loxley's response

Overall my changes have been fairly limited and specific. I am rather surprised that they have stirred up such animosity.

On the question of sources, I hope I have sourced all my contributions. Please could you point out where this is not the case and I will remove the offending parts. It should be noted that I contributed most of the quotations and references in the Multiple Drafts article.

Contrary to the accusations in this Cabal, I am not anti-Dennett and enjoy the interplay of ideas in philosophy as a pursuit that is independent of their veracity. I have wanted to include some insight into the standard critique of Multiple Drafts (in a separate section), have tried to keep the Cartesian materialism article neutral and sourced from authors other than Dennett and have corrected the Cartesian theatre article to show that Dennett has provided an attack on Cartesian materialism that is not the standard regress approach.

Surprisingly, the articles look fairly well-balanced as they stand although the regress based introduction to the cartesian theatre article is probably superfluous.

I am still rather unhappy about comparing Cartesian materialist descriptions to Joseph Stalin's show trials. It would be more encyclopedic to say that "Dennett invented the Stalinesque interpretation/Orwellian interpretation to explain his analysis of Cartesian materialism", this is factual and does not involve Misplaced Pages in the passive support of Dennett's pejorative method of argument.

The consciousness article is more problematical. Which philosophers should be prominent in this article? Philosophers such as Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Kant and Reid are obviously famous and have stood the test of time. Chalmers and Block are fairly main-stream. Block is a superb collater and summariser so is scarcely contentious and can be used as an entry point to the work of others. Had it not been for the "hard problem" Chalmers might not have been so widely known or well respected but "the hard problem" crystalises an important issue. Dennett is much nearer the edge however and may be seen as a "flash in the pan" in 10 years time. Notice that the article does not dwell on Whitehead, Russell, Husserl, Broad, Wittgenstein etc., all of whom have stood the test of time - if it does not mention Whitehead should it really pay much attention to Dennett or Spencer-Brown or Ken Wilber?

I am happy for a third party to review the articles. loxley 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)