Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Prototype
Items
Properties
All Categories
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Philosophical Research
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Philosophical Research:Rating Hub
(section)
Project page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Country-internal or country-independent questions === * Is this description or argument scientifically accurate? ("Scientific consensus test") - [[Ontology:P201|P201]] * Is this description or argument historically accurate? Does it present the set of events that have happened as far as anyone can tell or does it present another unverifiable set of events? ("Historical accuracy test") - [[Ontology:P202|P202]] * Can one take this description or argument and identify the historical progression of tangible objects and processes it is describing? ("Object test") - [[Ontology:P206|P206]] * Does this description or argument strictly put which figures are in authority and which authority figures people side with over what factually happened? ("Figurehead test") ** May be used to fail conspiracy theories. Rather hilariously highlights a lot of historical Trotskyist arguments as actually being conspiracy theories. ** "The proletariat" is not an authority figure. "Stalin" or "Trotsky" do count as authority figures. * Is this description or argument unnecessarily opaque for its intended educational level? ("Dirac test") - [[Ontology:P203|P203]] * Is this description or argument so terribly boring and full of monotone writing that normal people would not be able to focus? * Would this description or argument make somebody with ADHD look like they have totally normal executive function when they choose to stop listening to it? * If normal people saw this description or argument, would they actually care that this was the answer? Is the description or argument answering the wrong question rather than the questions everyone actually wants answered? ("Question-begging test") - [[Ontology:P207|P207]] * Is it possible this description or argument would sound completely stupid if the author just woke up, got out of bed and touched grass? ("Sunny test") - [[Ontology:P214|P214]] * Does this description or argument spend so much time on describing problems most people already know about it takes time away from contemplating solutions? ("Althusser test") - [[Ontology:P208|P208]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Philosophical Research may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar
free resource
.
Copyright is complete nonsense
, but people do have to buy items to be able to charge anyone taxes.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)