Talk:Pangloss

Untitled

There is an example of the naturalistic fallacy that should be noted by someone familiar with the book. I can't tell if it is committed either by the character in the book or by the author of the article. The statement before "in other words" does not imply the statement after "in other words."

"there is no effect without a cause" — in other words, everything in existence, from the human nose to natural disasters, is meant to suit a specific purpose. --RedHouse18 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a very good article. Thanks.

I disagree, the article is not structured well at all. CoryDambach 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the person was not using the criteria of "encyclopedic" to judge the article.

coinage

The article currently says:

The panglossian paradigm is a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin to refer to the notion that everything has specifically adapted to suit specific purposes. Instead, they argue, accidents and exaptation (the use of old features for new purposes) play an important role in the process of evolution.

In his rather negative review of a book coauthored by Lewontin, though, Richard Dawkins remarks, "The 'Panglossianism'—J. B. S. Haldane’s term is (mis)used without acknowledgement...". --Delirium 04:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw-man

Not sure if anyone agrees on this but the claim that Gould and Lewonton's reference to adaptationism as "panglossian" is nothing but a straw-man IS itself a straw-man. The claim that Gould and Lewonton are making is that pan-adaptationism as presented in many pieces relies on an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. This is to say, the idea that all evolutionary traits are selected for optimality etc relies on an unfounded assumption. Dennett and his coleagues would argue that if you do not see a way in which the trait evolved as "optimal" then you aren't looking hard enough or that it will eventually be discovered. However, this begs the question by assuming the opposite of the position against which you are arguing as a premise. Certainly the adaptationists opponents in ths discussion wouldn't allow this premise to be accepted at face value. Argumentation is needed, at least give some sort of epistemic justification. Bad form by any good philosopher's standards.

Ardentseigi 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not citing sources banner?

Not to be glib, but that's silly given that the first line of the article is "Pangloss is a character in Voltaire's novel Candide" which is an explicit citation. Citations don't need to be subscript numbers of APA parenthetical references, it is acceptable to directly reference an author or work and consider that a "citation." --FNV (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]