Sir Michael Dummett, A case of balance Options

[KD Tries Again]

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again: Tue 8th September 2009, 5:27pm

[Deodand]

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

I also note that the article has a grand total of zero inline citations, and this being a BLP and all. To be fair, it may be easier to find material on his hobbies; people tend not to write full biographies until the subject dies. I've occasionally found myself starting at a recalcitrant biographical stub and shouting "WHY WONT YOU HURRY UP AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY!"

[KD Tries Again]

I don't disagree in general, but Dummett is enough of a grand old man that there are plenty of biographical sources. And there is an inexhaustible secondary literature on his philosophy. It's the philosophy, rather than the life, which the article lacks. The one substantive paragraph on his work in philosophy gestures at a position he did indeed hold, but describes it really badly.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again: Tue 8th September 2009, 5:45pm

[Peter Damian]

I don't disagree in general, but Dummett is enough of a grand old man that there are plenty of biographical sources. And there is an inexhaustible secondary literature on his philosophy. It's the philosophy, rather than the life, which the article lacks. The one substantive paragraph on his work in philosophy gestures at a position he did indeed hold, but describes it really badly.

Thanks for pointing that out KD. Quite. Most articles about other philosophers devote a substantial amount to what the philosopher said.

I have Dummett's long and stupendously boring 'Frege: philosophy of language' on my shelf. Perhaps I should polish up the article. Oh what am I saying.

[edit] The IEP http://www.iep.utm.edu/dummett/ gives you a sense of what it should like. No BLP issues either.

Dummett is not my favourite philosopher, I have to say.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 8th September 2009, 5:48pm

[Eva Destruction]

I don't disagree in general, but Dummett is enough of a grand old man that there are plenty of biographical sources. And there is an inexhaustible secondary literature on his philosophy. It's the philosophy, rather than the life, which the article lacks. The one substantive paragraph on his work in philosophy gestures at a position he did indeed hold, but describes it really badly.

Thanks for pointing that out KD. Quite. Most articles about other philosophers devote a substantial amount to what the philosopher said.

I have Dummett's long and stupendously boring 'Frege: philosophy of language' on my shelf. Perhaps I should polish up the article. Oh what am I saying.

[edit] The IEP http://www.iep.utm.edu/dummett/ gives you a sense of what it should like. No BLP issues either.

Dummett is not my favourite philosopher, I have to say.

I doubt Dummett is anyone's favourite philosopher. I suspect the reason the Wikipedia article focuses on his tarot books is that they're the only ones anyone ever managed to finish.

[KD Tries Again]

The IEP article is woefully weak on his tarot interests.

I have material on the guy (I interviewed him once, and could have the pleasure of quoting myself on WP), but it really needs attention from a specialist. If I had time, I ought to be working on the articles where I have specialist knowledge.

[thekohser]

Dummett statistics for dummies!

Google Books hits for "Michael Dummett" = 1,025

Google Books hits for "Michael Dummett" and "philosophy" = 877

Google Books hits for "Michael Dummett" and "tarot" = 195

That's Wikipedia's NPOV for you!

[KD Tries Again]

Exactly.

Well I toned down the tarot section, because that's the easy part.

[A Horse With No Name]

I never heard of Dummet -- I feel like a dummy. I should stop reading about me and my friends in the Daily Racing Form and start reading whatever it is that Petey and the other brainy Brits are reading.

[RMHED]

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

Poor old Micky D and his dreary philosophy, just another victim of da 'pedia idiocy.

[Peter Damian]

Peter Geach http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=309286537 has equal claim to 'most eminent British philosopher' and his article is even more pitiful. He is also more interesting both as a philosopher and a person (I have a stock of Geach stories that unfortunately would not pass BLP nor 'reliable sources').

Interesting too that it has changed little since I created it back in August 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...h&oldid=3764544

Most of the changes are done by robots or are mere template additions.

I'm saying this only to emphasise again that Wikipedia is a long way from being 'complete' as so many people believe. There are thousands more articles to be written, and thousands to be given a treatment proportionate to their value.

-----------------------------------------
The article on Strawson, probably better and greater than either of them, is rubbish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strawson

look at the size of the bibliography compared to the article itself. The one on his son Galen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson

is more balanced, but that may be because he wrote it mostly himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gstrawson

Indeed he recruited his children to help!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/86.3.34.149
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205437689


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 8th September 2009, 8:02pm

[RMHED]

I'm saying this only to emphasise again that Wikipedia is a long way from being 'complete' as so many people believe.

Any work that specialises in pop culture can never be complete, it will remain a work in progress until its demise, whereupon it will find its true niche as intriguing internet detritus.

[Deodand]

I'm saying this only to emphasise again that Wikipedia is a long way from being 'complete' as so many people believe.

Any work that specialises in pop culture can never be complete, it will remain a work in progress until its demise, whereupon it will find its true niche as intriguing internet detritus.

Or alternately one big warning sign.

[Peter Damian]

I'm saying this only to emphasise again that Wikipedia is a long way from being 'complete' as so many people believe.

Any work that specialises in pop culture can never be complete, it will remain a work in progress until its demise, whereupon it will find its true niche as intriguing internet detritus.

Well time we got our thinking-clogs on to work out how this message will get across to the organisations that donate considerable sums of money to the wretched place. (As you know, I am thinking hard myself).

[GlassBeadGame]

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

Just be glad there has never been a passing reference to his work about tarot on Family Guy.

[A Horse With No Name]

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

Just be glad there has never been a passing reference to his work about tarot on Family Guy.

Don't be too cocky! The new season starts September 14.

[Peter Damian]

Supporting the idea that nothing has really changed since 2007, here is the article on the late Norman Kretzmann (American medievalist) created then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=139376554

and here it is now

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235472757

[Eppur si muove]

Peter Geach http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=309286537 has equal claim to 'most eminent British philosopher' and his article is even more pitiful. He is also more interesting both as a philosopher and a person (I have a stock of Geach stories that unfortunately would not pass BLP nor 'reliable sources').

I have a Michael Dummett story. When I was at Oxford, my philsophy tutor Michael Hinton suggested that I went to MD's lecture course as "He's cleverer that all of us." The lecture was hidden away in New College instead of at Schools or the philosophy institute where most philosophy lectures were. Various people came in and asked "Is this where Michael Dummett is lecturing?" Then someone who even 27-28 years ago struck me as doddering came in and asked "Is this where I'm meant to be?" He then opened his bag and said "Oh I seem to have forgotten my notes." Someone offered to cycle over and get them for him. However, I was not sufficiently engaged to attend another one.

The article on Strawson, probably better and greater than either of them, is rubbish

Peter Strawson was another big name whom I gave up on after one lecture. And in Strawson's case two people fell asleep during the lecture.

[Appleby]

Just because people get old and doddery and forgetful doesn't mean they weren't great in their heyday. And my uni experience is there's not much connection between people's eminence in their field and their ability to lecture well.

[Peter Damian]

Just because people get old and doddery and forgetful doesn't mean they weren't great in their heyday. And my uni experience is there's not much connection between people's eminence in their field and their ability to lecture well.

No, Dummett's writing is also exactly like that.

Much of what Dummett writes about Frege is complete fantasy (what Wikipedia calls "OR"). Grattan-Guinness is quite cruel about this.

The position of Frege in this story is rather strange, and often misrepresented; so, unusually, we have to begin after his end. Much commentary is available on analytic philosopher of language writing in English about meaning and its meaning(s), and putting forward some attendant philosophy of mathematics. The historical record, however, reveals a different figure: Gottlob Frege, a mathematician who wrote in German, in a markedly Platonic spirit [...] his highly Platonic concern with objective 'thoughts' (Gedanken) and centrally preoccupied with the possible reference of well-formed phrases or propositions, especially with naming abstract objects such as truth, rules him out as a founder of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of analytic philosophy of this century

Only in his last years and soon afterwards were his merits publicised; but usually they fell upon the consequences of his contributions to formal logic and to language ... Hence was born that philosopher of language and founder of the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition; most of the massive Frege industry, especially in English, is devoted to him and his development

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 20th September 2009, 2:00pm