User talk:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday11-12/Truth

Whatsapp Group Chat
This group has been coordinating work on sandbox assignment in a Whatsapp group chat. The main points were duplicated on the discussion pages, but the majority of communication behind this research was happening in the chat.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Things to be sorted out (follow up from meeting on MS Teams (3rd Nov)
Hi everyone this is a summary of what we have discussed during the Teams meeting!


 * 1. Completion of sections: Approaches to Truth, Truth in Sociology, Truth in Neuroesthetics
 * 2. Adding subheadings for Truth in Neuroesthetics
 * 3. Formatting: changing the title to Truth in historic paintings into Truth in Historic Paintings for formality
 * 4. Referencing: make sure things are properly referenced instead of links

I hope this is helpful for everyone! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a section on truth theories?
Hi guys! I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to add an overview of the different truth theories we intend to discuss on the top of the page? I this would be helpful for the person reading our page to follow with the different theories and also to avoid us from explaining the theories every time we mention them? If this sounds good, maybe we could each write what theories we plan to use and then each take on one of the theories and create a collaborative section? I am planning to use 1. Correspondence Theory of Truth 2. Phenomenological Theory and 3. Constructionist. -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs)


 * Hi this is a great idea! As of now I will be using Essentialist and Constructionist theories. I have added the section at the top called "Approaches to Truth". Feel free to add! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! I am a bit confused. Should I add my research on the essential vs constructionist ontologies in sociology under the sociology section or the approaches to truth section? I feel like it will be relevant in both the places. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that a general idea of the theories could be in the approaches to truth section, so later in the sociology section there is no need for defining the terms and we can just refer to them or re-define them in the context of the subject discussed so there is less overlap! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that you've added the essentialist and constructionist approaches to truths and adjusted my section to draw upon these concepts directly and removed general discussions of these theories unless contextualised in my topic of gender! Additionally, in my research I have found some things I think would be meaningful contributions to the constructionist part you have written! Feel free to reorganise what I've added! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thanks for that, I'll make sure to have a read. Moreover, I too have found some information that would be a meaningful contribution to your section on gender, more specifically, examining gender from the two perspectives I discussed. I'll add it soon and you are reorganise it as you see fit. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's great!! Our areas of research overlap a lot so let's keep collaborating on these sections! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Would Usernamee anoymous and Shaunice34 mind if I place your sections about historical paintings and photography under a new section called "Truth in Art"? Because quite obviously both of what you guys discuss falls under the category of art and so I think it would look quite neat to have both of your entries under a new section to tie in your two fields in some way! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey this sounds good to me and I think that would make it more organised! Thank you for suggesting this! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for that. Sorry, I missed this message.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sociology
Hi! I'm planning on doing a section on truth in sociology, particularly focusing on the truth of gender. If anyone would like to collaborate on this or other parts of sociology that would be great! Please let me know! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey I saw you added a part on idealism vs realism and I think it's a pretty interesting comparison so I had read some stuff about it (mainly in a philosophical point of view) and added it to the approaches to truth section, feel free to change it or delete it if there's anything that you thing might be problematic or if it overlaps with what you intend to write! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! Currently, I'm writing about truth in beauty, primarily focusing on the neurobiological, positivist approach in the pursuit of it. But I do want to try perhaps writing a bit on the sociological aspect of beauty, and the constructivist as well as the phenomenological aspect towards its truth. I think I'd talk quite a bit about beauty standards, and explore how such an inherently phenomenological concept such as beauty ties in with social constructivism to form what each society has — 'beauty standards'. And maybe a little about how the truth in beauty has never really existed (because of how experientially dependent it is), but thanks to social constructivism, the illusion of its 'truth' is propelled so much that the beauty standards are considered the generally-accepted truth of beauty, and I'll maybe mention about how it is also capitalised off of by large corporations which further propels the notion. Hope that made sense! Let me know what you think about it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow! think that would be a great section! Exploring beauty and beauty standards from the perspective of social constructivism is incredibly interesting and I agree with everything you say. However I am a bit unsure about how we should go about that in terms of organisation. Are you planning to add it under the sociology section or the beauty section? Or perhaps a new "section" of it's own under both to tie them together? --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! The truth about beauty seems to be a very interesting topic to investigate. Do you plan to look at golden ratio and theories that are trying to explain why people tend to find certain features beautiful? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I was actually also questioning the organisation of the section myself too, especially as you have mentioned the really interesting thing about golden ratio of facial attractiveness (which I was not planning on going into, but would love to collaborate with you on it potentially)! As it seems the beauty section may well expand further than what I have initially expected it to be, perhaps we could make a big section called "Truth in Abstract Concepts". The sections about "Truth in Beauty" and "Truth in Love/Ethnocentrism" (written by Citrus48) could go under that together, and even the gender one (if you could call it an 'abstract concept')! And then we could make separate subsections under the "Truth in Beauty": one for neuroesthetics and one for mathematics (golden ratio). How's that sound? But honestly what I've suggested would actually require re-organisation of the whole page. So we may need input from everyone else on this. Here's what my proposal of the page and section reformatting would look like:


 * Content List
 * 1. Approaches to Truth
 * 2. Truth in Abstract Concepts
 * 2.1 Truth in Beauty
 * 2.1.1 Neuroesthetics
 * 2.1.2 Golden Ratio / Mathematics
 * 2.2 Truth in Gender
 * 2.3 Truth in Love / Ethnocentrism


 * Hope this makes sense! What does everyone think about this? -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Kerocringe09! Sounds like a great idea truly, but assuming gender is an abstract concept in the first place is subscribing to an essentialist or constructivist ontology. So, apologies, but I may have to disagree with your proposed structure of the page. I think gender should stay under the sociology section, because I am very blind is dissecting the truth in gender from a sociological lens rather than a general one. Secondly, I would love to collaborate with I am very blind on this one! I think I will provide the initial explanation of truth in sociology, diving into the specifics of essentialist and constructionist ontologies and how those shape dichotomous views of the world. Also, I will provide information for the sub-heading "the divergent truths of gender in different cultures". Whatever I am very blind is comfortable with dividing, of course! Let me know. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * For the divergent truths of gender in different cultures, I already have some researched some exmaples but feel free to add yours! We can definitely collaborate on that part! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries! I think I'd also agree with you now that I have a better insight on what the sociology section will entail. Thanks! Anyways, I think we could come back to the structure of any sections later perhaps once the major parts of page is just about completed. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I do like your proposition but I have to agree with Feminist06. Though it appear to be more organised as compared to what we have now, it would not be fair to list gender under abstract concepts if we approach gender from a sociological perspective, which in itself explores different perspectives on the nature of truth. --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey I am very blind! Turns out I got confused with the content that went in "truth of gender from different perspectives" and in "the divergent truths of gender in different cultures." I ended up researching extensively on the ontological approaches to gender and sex and later found out that it fit well in the first section rather than the one I proposed earlier. Sorry for the confusion! I have just added 3 new paragraphs to "truth in gender from different perspectives" and made some grammatical edits to yours, if you don't mind. Have a look and let me know if there are any problems. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there! No worries at all for the confusion. I have read your contributions and they are extremely interesting! Your specific approach to writing and research adds a lot of professionalism (and great content)! However currently the section is a bit long so I am looking at ways to possibly organise it! Thank you again for your additions!- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I noticed the sectioning off of paragraphs and the new sub-headings. They are great and precise, amazing job! I just made one small contribution and added another sub-heading to increase coherence. Hope you don't mind! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I am very blind! As I was reading through the section, I felt that adding a bit on the biological aspect in terms of hormonal and evolutionary explanations would enhance emphasis on a positivist approach to the truth of gender. I hope I could include this information to the section. Please do read through it and feel free to edit or morph it accordingly! I will add it after a little more research into the topic. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there! Thank you so much for your contributions! Your in depth exploration of the positive approach to gender adds a lot of substance to the section and is a great display of one of the perspectives. However as I've responded to Feminist06, the section is quite long now and I am seeing if there's a way to better coordinate or organise everything! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I would like to recommend reading through the case study of David Reimer (1965-2004), if it is applicable, it could be referred in the truth in gender section as the implications of the case study highlight an alternative to the theory of how the environment and a cognitive influence may affect gender identity. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have read up on this case from a few sources and - thought quite disturbing - is also very intriguing. Thank you for your recommendation and I will be sure to incorporate it into the section! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I have added a section about the David case study, do read through it and feel free to make changes so that it fits the context. Thank you! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've added my entry for beauty under the sociology section. Please feel free to make any necessary changes to it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I think it is really interesting! However I believe it may fit better as a subsection to gender! (Which I see you have moved already) -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I have read through everything and made some changes to the structure as I felt that both essentialist and constructivist perspectives and categories of practice and analysis were muddled into an order that didn't quite make sense. I apologise if you had reasoning behind it and please do share! I'm not completely sure of my current structure either, so please feel free to suggest or just edit any alternative methods of organisation you feel is better! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! In regards to the overall structure to the section, I was thinking that we could change the section from 'truth in sociology' to 'truth in gender' as we are using tools of different epistemological theories of truth to understand the concept of gender, and sociology is a part of those tools. What are your thoughts on this? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstract Concepts
Hello! I am preparing content for a section on the truth of abstract feelings such as love and ethnocentrism. I was thinking of writing in the perspective of how neurotransmitters influence behaviour as a result of instigating feelings. Does anyone have any more ideas on what could be included? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am currently writing a section about the "Truth in Beauty", but I wanted to focus more on the neurobiological standpoint which relates to the studies in Neuroesthetics, and question how much closer to the truth we can be if we take a more positivist approach to investigating the truth of subjective concepts and mental states (particularly beauty in my case), or how doing so can deflect us from the real truth (if there is any) and then maybe evaluate the use of other epistemological approaches that can be taken. (I've added some notes in my section so you can see roughly what I'll be talking about.) I believe Neuroesthetics also includes other abstract feelings such as the ones you have mentioned! So I think it would be great to group our research under a section called 'Truth in Neuroesthetics'. It's already up at the moment but I'd like to know your thoughts on it! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked through your notes and I really like the concept of structuring the information through three theories of truth! I think specifically in the context of beauty, we could mention the formation of stereotypes in society as an aspect of perceived truth. As the concepts can integrate with each other, I agree that we should group our information, it will really help a reader with a wholesome understanding. As I add the information, do feel free to edit and morph it, whether it be in the structure and order of the paragraphs, or the content itself. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, we could definitely mention the formation of stereotypes to speak through a constructivist lens on beauty! I was actually thinking of writing a small section on that under sociology perhaps since it's a lot to do with social cultures, patterns and changes and it doesn't exactly go under Neuroesthetics per se. What are your thoughts on this?


 * Also I've added most of my part on beauty onto the page. Please also feel free to make any changes or edits to it you deem necessary. I'll make sure to have a read of yours on love since it is such an interesting thing to be looking at through an epistemological perspective! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! For those of writing about truth of true love and other abstract concepts, I found a reference that might be useful. During my research on sociological ontologies, I stumbled across a discipline called Sociometry, which is a quantitative method of measuring interpersonal relationships. After further digging, I found this: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-ZmyDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=moreno+the+science+of+society&ots=3Hp_w8K4wH&sig=Eux3gI1Q8qFWeHFHXYX6ApYJGvU#v=onepage&q=sociometry&f=false. This is a book that details the concept. I personally think this concept could be applicable in the truth of true love. But feel free to not use it, just a suggestion! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 09:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for the resource! I was going through it, and I am really interested by the way sociometry measures the inner structures of social groups through mathematical analysis. I was wondering if this involves statistical tests such as the t-test, chi square test, Mann Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon test, and so on. The source explains about a sociometric test, and it says that it is 'not a test at all' and is instead an 'opportunity' for the subject, for researchers to attain an observation of the subject's 'action response'. I would really appreciate it if you could perhaps further explain the concept. Thank you in advance! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in historic paintings
Hello! I've added the section about the truth in historic paintings. I've got some doubts about 2 sources. First looks like a good quality article written by professor in art history, with multiple references, it's from American Antiquarian Society but I can't find any journal/book it was published in and it exists only on one website as a pdf, so I cited the web address. The other one is published on a popular websiht about art materials by a commercial company that produces paints, but the information I took from this article about oils yellowing is common knowledge among artists. Do you think it is OK to use these sources? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! The first reference you mentioned is almost definitely fine in my opinion, because if the author of the source is a professor specialising in art history, I think it's quite safe to assume that he has expertise in that area and is therefore credible. But if you want to be sure, you could scan through some of its references and do a quick quality-check on them before double-confirming the credibility of the source. And I think this is applicable to the second source too: as it is a commercial company that specialises in producing paint, I'd assume that they would know what they are talking about when it comes to paints which would make them a credible source; and if the information you sourced is common knowledge, then that makes it easier to confirm the information. So all in all, they both seem fine to me! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I've checked some of the references in that paper and they are of good quality. I'll keep these sources then.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth in photography
Hello, I've added my section on photography! Let me know if any of you think I could add anything more or change anything! I have a question though - the photo that i uploaded is somehow really enlarged on the sandbox, was wondering if anyone knows why that has happened or could help me with that? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have changed the image size to 100px, and the code used will be visible in the edit page. Please do change the size to your preference and to a size that will best help with the presentation of the page. I hope this helps! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've also reformatted your image into a thumbnail on the left of the page so it looks neater. Hope that's okay with you! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you so much for that, it looks really neat now!! I really like it! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I added a caption for referencing the image directly on the page. If you look through the code structure, it might help with doing the same with any more media we might include. Hope this helps! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for doing that and the caption is perfect!! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth of Life and Death
Hi! I added a section on the truth of life and death. I was wondering if this should be under the section where we talk about abstract concepts. While the concept of life and death itself is abstract, the content does not focus on a neuropsychological approach, and is more of a literature and philosophical understanding of life and death. I look forward to your suggestion on this, and as you read through it, if you feel like there is more content to be added to make better sense of it, please do add information, or tell me and I will look further into your suggestion in this aspect. Thank you in advance! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I had a read on this section and it's an interesting way of dissecting into the truth of life and death! I added some hyperlinks to keywords such as John Keats and the name of his poems (also italicised them), let me know if any of that is inaccurate. For the sub-sections for the positivist and phenomenological approach I added a short sentence in each of them just to make it clear how it links back to the overall idea, I hope it makes sense and feel free to change it. I just thought it would be more clear to emphasise how the different approaches apply different methodologies or yield different outcomes. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Shaunice34! Thank you for the hyperlinks! It is a really good idea as it lets a reader go to a page specifically about the poems, especially helpful if they have not read the text before. After reading the sentences you added for emphasis, I was inspired to add a bit more in the context of the explanations outlined! Thank you! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)