![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this part, if it is needed, should be revised and renamed to something more neutral, like "psychological effects of hard determinism". 83.251.160.139 ( talk) 11:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Great suggestion. And actually that title will be importantly neutral when I add more empirical research (good or bad) to that section.- Tesseract2 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The tone and POV of this piece wheels back and forth and has a convoluted chain of logic. Also references to hard determinist thinkers should be general or gender neutral, not "she".
Jpuglionesi ( talk) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"that a person's actions can still help shape that future"? But hard determinism (according to this article) doesn't regard the future as a variable that can be shaped at all. Furthermore, the concept of the future, as distinct from the past, makes sense only in the context of presentism, and hard determinism (according to this article) doesn't allow even the weakest form of presentism. Collin237 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.203.79.115 (
talk)
01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an incredibly poorly written article. It looks like a long essay of original research and the tone is heavily biased against the subject matter. If there's going to be an article on hard determinism on Wikipedia, it should start from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.75.198 ( talk) 21:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I rarely see a worse written article on wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.7.168 ( talk) 19:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
New expansions give this page more to say. I will move a lot of the info from the ethics section to moral responsibility, and whatever I keep I will try to make sure it is sourced.- Tesseract2 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I find the so-called "Overview" almost literally unintelligible. Given that heading, I had hoped for some skerrick by way of an introduction, to start. Instead readers must plunge into four bluntly dense (referenced) sources. I observe that this content now seems to stand dated some ten years past? (I have not tried tracking past author(s)-history of "Overview".) Vague thanks to Tesseract2. 106.69.217.57 ( talk) 02:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
So who would like to discuss any parts where neutrality may be lacking? If there are no immediate issues remaining, I will remove the tag. Otherwise, the article only stands to gain from discussion.- Tesseract2 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Near the start of the overview section, it says:
"Just as the initial conditions of the universe presumably determine all future states, so too does the present necessitate the past."
This doesn't make sense to me. A system can be completely deterministic without a present state necessitating a certain previous state. As an example, consider a system with 3 states: A, B, C. Now let's also say that the system evolves in steps, at each step A->C, B->C, C->A, for example you could have: ACACACAC..., or BCACACACAC... . This system is 100% deterministic, and yet if the current state is C, the previous state could have been A or B.
Does this make sense to anyone else? I think this needs to be modified, though looking at the other comments and briefly at the article this may be rather trivial in the face of a large-scale rewrite.
Mozza314 ( talk) 13:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)