User talk:GCooper316/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 10/Truth

Potential contribs to music entry
Hi all! I wrote the truth in music entry. To be honest, it's a pretty complex and abstract topic, and it could be explored in many other ways too. (i.e. different genres, instruments) Basically, if anybody wants to add a section on it, go ahead:) You can have opposing views/arguments regarding the truth in music too Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I added a bit. I thought the arousal theory could be arguable interpreted as a constructionist view towards music, thereby holding further impilcations for truth within music. I hope it fits, I tried to format it that way. Of course, do feel free to tell me if i should change anything, or edit it yourself! RandomOmellette (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Saw your contribution and really liked it! I've edited it and intergrated it into "Expression of truth in music" so it flows better, thank you so much. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(adding on) potential contributions to the gender entry
I wrote that entry and personally felt I could have added more because gender spans so far and wide, so if someone is doing like something from a sociological perspective maybe they could add something, or reccomend it?RandomOmellette (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC+8)


 * Hi, I added under the Constructivism in Gender section about how social policies (a constructivist academic discipline in itself, that overlaps with sociology) can influence the landscape of gender studies. Feel free to make some edits to it to make it flow better according to your original vision for the entry! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just saw! Thanks so much, i've edited a bit to make it just flow a bit better (while I do think you have a point originally, I had to modify so it fit because my constructivist blurb was more focused on the study of gender itself rather than its external impilcations) RandomOmellette (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment on the "logical reasoning and truth" section
I think for the "logical reasoning and truth" section within "truth in logic", there could be more elaboration on the link between logical reasoning and truth. In particular, i think an interesting addition would be how logic is relevant in the different approaches to truth (positivist, constructionist,...)? So far, it speaks a bit about having formal proofs, but I think maybe delving deeper into how these formal proofs are made would help. RandomOmellette (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC+8)


 * Thank you for your comment. I have talked about the normative approach to truth with logic in the section above "logical reasoning and truth" because this is where I have done my research. From what I have seen logic is a normative discipline, I didn't find any information about another approach, I will do further research to see if I can find anything. For the second part of your comment, I have elaborated in the introduction how arguments are made with logical reasoning, the part "logical reasoning and truth" was meant to explain the relation between the logical reasoning I have explain in the beginning and truth. But if this is not clear enough, I am probably going to see how I can arrange this section. Anarmi632 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw just now, I think it is way better now! You've elaborated much more and its a lot clearer. Just to clarify a bit of what I meant, theres not usually stuff that actually links positivism/constructivism to the descipline in question, but from what we know of the two its possible to link them yourself as an expansion of what we learned.RandomOmellette (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How to edit your reference: wikibooks guide
I have seen that some reference where repeated many times at the end and I made change so they could appear only once. I have noticed this is repeated frequently (for the sandbox about History and Evidence) and I assume that maybe not everyone knows how to do it. For everyone interested this is what you need to do when you have the same reference repeated many times and want it to appear only once at the end of the sandbox to make it less "congested": you start the same way (as if you want to add a new reference) but in the beginning put . Then, just put the same thing in front of the other identical references.You just need to change the “anything you want” when you change to another reference. In case it was not clear, take a look at the edits in the user page. I hope you find this helpful. Anarmi632 (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Organization and tones in "Truth in Communication"
1. The article lacks an obvious overall progression marked by lack of divisions unlike other articles on this page. Perhaps you can include some divisions to clearly lead your reader to the main points of your article. 2. “The preconceptions associated with the relationship between social sciences and truth, would suggest that truth in a discipline like communication is constructed, relative and subjective.” I think punctuation used in the sentence makes it difficult to catch the overall meaning. I suggest the writer slice the ideas in distinct sentences for the sake of clarity instead of making a complex sentence.

3. I think articles should maintain a formal tone. In this article, personal pronouns are used (we) which makes it less formal and objective especially in paragraph 2 and 3. I suggest the writer take a third person approach to make it more truthful.

4. Organization. I think it is better to interchange 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for a smoother flow of ideas. At first, it would be better to tell that there is a general belief that everyone tells the truth. Then in the last paragraph, you can refute it with the constructivist theory and the example there.

5. I think it would also be good if there is a conclusion for the article to give the reader a sense of closure.uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

6. In my opinion it would sound better, if you replaced "communication" with "language", for example, because language can be seen more as a whole discipline than communication and yet language is a base of communication. However, I may be wrong, correct me if I am. --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, I have now edited the article and divided it into sections. I have also replace the personal pronouns and added a short conclusion. Let me know if you think there is anything else I could do to make it clearer or better! Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment on "Constructivism in Happiness"
First of all, I find your work really interesting. I just wanted to add a comment about one of your section ( the one where you talk about constructivist approach to happiness). You don't say explicitely which disciplines are concerned for this approach, from the rest of your work, I believe it is psychology but I think that if you just add this information in the section it will be clearer for the people who read the text. Anarmi632 (discuss • contribs) 06:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you that you find my work interesting. As you suggested, I clarified the point in the introduction part. uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Responding to discussion posts
Hi all, this doesn't really concern any entries in the sandbox, but rather the Discussion page. Just wanted to remind everyone that if you would like to respond to a discussion post, you should make sure your response is indented (relative to the main, initial post). You can do this by adding a ":" in front of your response. Or if you're replying to a reply, "::". Makes it a little easier to read and discern who is responding to which message, so we can bring this forward to future wiki assignments! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right. I have edited all the response on the discussion page and it is way clearer. We should definitely implement this for our future discussions. Anarmi632 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying a part of Truth in Logic
I found this entry very interesting while I was editing parts of it, but I found that I'm unsure of what this sentence means:

"In his Principles of Mathematics, Russel says that the truths coming from logical constants only are a priori truths." under 'Criticism' I believe.

Did the writer mean "truth coming from logical constants is only a priori truth?" Or "truths coming from logical constants are only priori truths?" I know this is very minor but I wouldn't want to damage the original intention of the text by directly editing it. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 07:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The correct formulation is "truth coming from logical constants is only a priori truth?". "A priori" is a word, it means not empirical, only depends on deduction in this context. Anarmi632 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search for what a priori is after submitting this post and soon realised that it was its' own word - apologies! Thankfully, no edits were made to that section. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)