User talk:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 2/History

Talk
General

Does anyone have ideas on how to order the page as a whole, perhaps going from more related to hard sciences to humanities or vice versa? Or at least grouping sections talking about similar subject areas together? --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Some time ago I corrected our overall structure. Do you think we should make one "Nores/References" section instead of a few separate ones? It seems like that was used in the past years. Answering your question, we could start from "hard sciences" and end up with "the history of history".
 * --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * An idea for the order of the topics


 * History of Physics: The Conflict between Science and Religion
 * History of Artificial Intelligence as a discipline
 * Influences of Philosophy and Scientific Theory on Psychology through the 19th and 20th centuries
 * History of Disciplines : Emergence of Criminology
 * History of Disciplines: The Conflict Between Law and Psychology
 * The History of Sociology
 * History of Disciplines: Evolution of Gender and Women’s Studies
 * History of International Relations
 * Formation of history as a discipline


 * What do you think about this order?


 * --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that order is good, does anyone else want to weigh in before we make the change?


 * As for the references all being in one section, although that would be neater for the overall look of the page, however, it might make marking it more difficult. Maybe we should ask Stefano before doing that. --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Rivised order to account for new articles?


 * 1	History of Physics: The Conflict between Science and Religion
 * 2	History of Artificial Intelligence as a discipline
 * 3	Influences of Philosophy and Scientific Theory on Psychology through the 19th and 20th centuries
 * 4	History of Disciplines : Emergence of Criminology
 * 5	History of Disciplines: The Conflict Between Law and Psychology
 * 6	History of Disciplines: Evolution of Gender and Women’s Studies
 * 7	The History of Sociology
 * 8	History of International Relations
 * 9	History of peace and conflicts study - Counterterrorism
 * 10	Formation of History as a Discipline


 * I am going to impliment it, but if anyone objects comment or just change it. --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi I'm a bit late as I didn't have access till this week but I'm writing my section on the History of Mathematics so would that slot in somewhere near the beginning? Don't know if it's considered more or less of a hard science that physicsApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done I would say mathematics is the purest science, so I have put it at the top :) --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's great, I've briefly mentioned physics as a discipline in my section too so should flow nicely to the section on physicsApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk: History of Artificial Intelligence as a discipline

@bascer1000, in your writing, you imply that the human mind is a system of symbols because a system of symbols has the capacity for the type of intelligence that a human mind has. I don't think that is logically consistent? Unless you assume that the only way to achieve these types of intelligence is through a symbol system. but anyway here's an article you might find interesting and/or useful discussing the limitations and potential of symbol languages in AI https://www.science20.com/eye_brainstorm/blog/what_are_symbols_ai-76536 --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up - I think in a bid to be concise I lost some clarity in the point i was trying to make. I have added in some more explanation. Also, the reference to the PSSH was less about arguing for/against whether a computer could have intelligence in the same way as a human mind but just as an example of how a more philosophical way of thinking plays a key role in the discipline. I will have a look at the article now.

Bascer1000 (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Bascer1000


 * Glad you found my comment useful, to do the sign off its the 5th button from the left on the gui bar --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your text is really interesting. I would also like to add that artificial intelligence was born through legends and myths and that scientists have been trying to get close to it for a long time. In people’s imagination, creatures capable of thinking made from objects have existed since Ancient Greece. Talos can be cited in Greek mythology or Golem in Jewish culture. More recently, Frankenstein, the creature of Mary Shelley’s novel, may also make one think of it. These stories and legends lead to the idea that one day people will be able to build a creature with the intelligence of a human. This image emerged in people’s minds. Alan Turing created a test called the ‘Turing test’. It is constituted of a blind discussion between someone and a machine or another person and the goal was that the person did not differentiate the machine from the other human being. For him, the machines would pass successfully the test by the year 2000. So one can see that artificial intelligence has always fascinated people and that technical progress allows these people to realize the things they had in their imagination. --Write&Leave (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk: Formation of history as a discipline

I corrected some minor grammar mistakes and added punctuation. I see that you are missing the "references" section. Your work gives good background information on the topic of history as an issue of disciplinarity. Therefore, we could use the beginning of your work as an "introduction" to the whole section of "History". Moreover, I do not think that it is essential to link history to physics in your last paragraph. The ending should sum up your point rather than introduce a new idea. Finally, did you consider separating your work into a few subtitles/sections? The use of subsections improves communication. What do you think about this order?


 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) History as a Discipline in Ancient Greece
 * 3) History as a Discipline in the 19th Century
 * 4) Conclusion

There are no references in your writing at all so where did you get your information? Concerned that your work may get written up for plagiarism because you haven't mentioned any external sourcesApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk: History of Disciplines: The Conflict Between Law and Psychology 

Some really interesting points made here however was quite difficult to read as there was no paragraphing or sectioning. Went ahead and split up the text where I think the point moved on a bit and made some minor grammar revisions to make the text read and flow better. I also think you could add in some subheadings within section to show the progression of the points you're making. These could be something like:

conflict between law and psychology,

case study intersection , psychology's influence on law,

conclusions Apricotptr (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make these changesApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

History of counterterrorism I corrected some grammar mistakes. The overall is good but I think you could develop certain points such as the definition of counterterrorism and its role in you last paragraph. The discipline you chose is very interesting but you don't show enough why it's a discipline. Also for you references, I know there is a site that does the layout properly: https://www.citethisforme.com/harvard/source-type. --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)