Talk:Integrity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Nirvana888 (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 71.113.15.173 (talk) to last version by Tgeorgescu |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{philosophy|importance=|class=|ethics=yes}} |
|||
== Linguistic Note == |
|||
From a purely linguistic view, "integrity" is an odd word. To define the word by part of speech, "integrity" is a noun; yet it is always used as a descriptor of nouns, both abstract and concrete. In other words, intergrity is only used in English in the "***** has integrity" format. But while the word "integrity" is always used to describe nouns, there is no adjective form of the word (ie., no integrious, integritious). This is especially odd if the etymology of the "integrity" is correct and it comes from the Latin adjective, "integer." I am certain there are more words like this. My goal is to collect all such oddities =) |
|||
:Forgive my ignorance of customary formatting. Regarding the above linguistic note: You may want to look into ontology. The nouns you refer to are considered properties and only exist (depending on the theory) insofar as they are predicated of another existent. See also predication, universals, particulars. This is off the top of my head, but it might help you approach your goal. |
|||
::As far as ontology/epistemology is concerned, what you said about ontology is valid only for nominalist and eventually for conceptualist theories. Realist theories say that properties really exist. E.g., the property of having beauty (being beautiful) is due to participating to the Idea of Beauty. Beauty exists in itself. Even the language tells it "She '''has''' beauty", i.e. she owns a piece of the Idea of Beauty. Altough, from a realist standpoint, more correctly it would be said that she participates in Beauty, or that Beauty has her. |
|||
::Further, "quality" is also a noun. There is no "qualitous" or so. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu|contribs]]) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Observation in respect to integrity tests== |
|||
As said, there is an easy way to cheat at integrity tests. But not all answers have to be a 100% agreement with the mentioned attributes, because no person in that area is so dumb in order for him/her to believe in a 100% perfect integrity score. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== irrelevant and bad english == |
|||
"Integrity is when your trustworthy." |
|||
Integrity is when you are trustworthy. Also, this is completely irrelevant in the subheading mathematics <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.76.142.96|74.76.142.96]] ([[User talk:74.76.142.96|talk]]) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Uhh... Citation needed. Muchly. == |
|||
I think this article needs a little beefing out, and not in the form it has been getting recently. There are so many statements that are merely opinion, but stated as fact. I have no problem with this, as long as they are used as quotes of someone who thought that way. If you (67.183.136.6 and many others) want to create a page detailing why you think the way you do about integrity that is well written and presents its arguments persuasively on your own site and cite your opinion here, go ahead. Otherwise, keep the article clean. |
|||
Also, shouldn't there be separate articles for the different kinds of integrity? I was actually looking online for a good explanation of integrity as it applies to material science, and nothing came up at all. I can't find my copy of Engineering Alloys, which had an excellent definition if I remember correctly. If I find the book I shall make a page posthaste. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sortitus|Sortitus]] ([[User talk:Sortitus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sortitus|contribs]]) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Agreed. There are some parts to this page that appear to be accurate but there are a couple of sections that could use major improvement. "Evaluating/measuring integrity" seems to be inferring much more than is reasonable from the use of language. I believe that integrity is generally viewed as being a continuous variable not "all-or-nothing." The "all-or-nothing" example merely demonstrates people using an extreme form when it is not truly intended that way. Similarly when people say "last scraps" of integrity, they are not measuring integrity in a unit called "scraps" nor are any properties of "scraps" implied by that usage. It merely means "a relatively small amount". The section "(Tests of) professional integrity" does not explain how these tests work or provide any citations. The first sentence in that section is ok and I think can be taken at face value. The rest as far as I can tell is wild conjecture so should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/216.36.186.2|216.36.186.2]] ([[User talk:216.36.186.2|talk]]) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Agreed. This whole article reeks of exactly that which I suspected... that "integrity" is a weakly defined concept that noone really knows exactly what it is. |
|||
: We need citations for this and lots of 'em. Otherwise thise whole article becomes a subject for deletion. --[[User:J-Star|J-Star]] ([[User talk:J-Star|talk]]) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Disappearance of material == |
|||
On [[2008-09-26]] at 0556 hours an unregistered Wikipedian using a previously non-editing IP address removed almost 50 percent of this article, obliterating multiple tags and eliminating various views of integrity without making any comment. Failing an explanation on the Talk-page, I propose to restore the deleted material. -- [[User:Pedant17|Pedant17]] ([[User talk:Pedant17|talk]]) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have restored the article from massive vandalism committed by a group of cultists called "Psycans", who spread their ideology as if it were a mainstream scientific fact. E.g., there are no (nummerical) measures for ethical values -- the edit made by Psycans is a complete rant. I suggest that this page become protected by moderators, and that the vandals (often known only by their IP's) are banned from Wikipedia. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Why is it plain vandalism? First, deleting relevant information without due reason (we may guess that the adepts of Psycanics feel extremely uncomfortable with mainstream viewpoints, thus seek to delete mainstream information from Wikipedia...). Second, as written by [[User:Hgilbert]] on October 29, 2007, "Wikipedia does have clear guidelines about an editor not putting in his/her own formulations, even if based upon a carefully built case and backed up with evidence; instead, we as editors should report on the conclusions drawn by authorities in the field. It's well worth reading the guidelines as to where the line is to be drawn between reporting on conclusions and drawing one's own. ... By the way, only peer-reviewed, print-published, non-polemical sources should be used; see [[WP:Verifiability|Verifiability]] standards to clarify this (and for exceptions)." <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu|contribs]]) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Undoing my recovery of "Integrity"== |
|||
I want to ask you what is the depth and the breadth of a value system? Are they measured in centimeters? Why value systems should be congruent "with a wider range of observations"? What does that mean? Does it mean that the subculture having those values has to generate realistic behavior (as opposed to idealistic behavior)? Does it mean that they have to behave as they preach? Why do people are required to account for the discrepancy between parts of a value system? Does it matter at all how they construct such account? Or they are simply hypocrite, regardless of how they account for this discrepance? |
|||
I remind you that "This article is about the ethical concept. For other uses, see Integrity (disambiguation)." So, I suggest to move the contributions about mathematical integrity elsewhere, or start an article [[Integrity (mathematics)]]. |
|||
Further I do not understand what those titles Testing via... mean. Do they mean that one tests (measures) integrity? A scientific theory is falsified or not falsified, it is falsifiable or not falsifiable. So what is that discussion about testing (measuring) integrity? How does one measure how much scientific integrity some theory has? The scientific integrity means "The integrity of science is based on a set of testing principles known as the scientific method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, it is considered scientific. The scientific method includes measures to ensure unbiased testing and the requirement that the hypothesis have falsifiability." I.e. integrity is specific to the scientific community when it operates 100% as it should (as in Merton's norms). It is not a characteristic of scientific theories. |
|||
A reader cannot understand what psychological integrity tests are about, as the article looks at this time. It writes: "Testing via Psychological Tests The pretension of such tests to detect fake answers plays a crucial role in this respect, because the naive really believe such outright lies and behave accordingly, reporting their past deviance because they fear that otherwise their answers will reveal it. The more Pollyannaish the answers, the higher the integrity score.[1]" This is too elliptic to be understandable. It does not say what these tests measure and what their use is. |
|||
Further, I know of no (serious) consistent values system. The more serious and respectable a value system is, the more contradictions it seems to contain. This is because the accuse of hypocrisy is itself hyppocrite, since nobody lives at the top (height) of his/her moral and political ideals, so it is hypocritical to blame others for not living 100% by their own book. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Besides, General Relativity is not a [[value system]] (see the definition there), since Einstein was a scientist, not a moral preacher. He did not preach moral values in the General Relativity. |
|||
What does it mean "A system with perfect integrity yields a singular extrapolation," when speaking of moral values? Does it mean anything at all? How can one extrapolate moral values? Or is it simply nonsense? It uses a scientific jargon, but here stops the good I see in it. I remind you that you are not Spinoza, constructing a moral system more geometrico demonstrata, using your own definitions. Where these definitions come from? Can you show their sources? I could find nothing like that in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Just some congruence between consistence of moral values and integrity. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Here is the list of users who agree that integrity (ethical concept) cannot be measured or tested, and to assume otherwise is a hoax: |
|||
[[User:Sortitus]] |
|||
[[User:216.36.186.2]] |
|||
[[User:J-Star]] |
|||
[[User:Pedant17]] |
|||
[[User:Tgeorgescu]] |
|||
Otherwise, start an article about [[Integrity (mathematics)]] with mentioning how scientific theories are said in the philosophy of mathematics to have integrity, what that means, and what is the source for that meaning in mainstream scientific-philosophic literature. I cannot immagine that there are nummerical measures or tests for such integrity (mathematical concept), since the philosophy of mathematics operates with concepts, not with nummerical measures. |
|||
To put it bluntly, it is a lame thing to say that integrity (ethical concept) could be measured or tested. It is sheer nonsense, and you should not mix the philosophy of mathematics with ethics and psychological tests. |
|||
I also support censorship of this article by moderators, and I affirm that persisting in this version of this article is an exercise in confusion and nonsense. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==What this means?== |
|||
The following affirmation from "Integrity in ethics" sounds like utter rubbish to me: "If we define a value as an assumption upon which to extrapolate either implementation or other values, then a value system emerges as a set of consistent values and measures." So, help me out of my ignorance: how in God's name is one able to extrapolate a moral value? Use the square to make it right? How does one plot moral values on a graph? How does one then draw then a line to extrapolate a single moral value? What is the "implementation" of a value? Does it mean anything at all? Or is it just sheer nonsense? |
|||
Further, most people do not have value systems, they merely have moral values (i.e. when they do not behave as total materialists). Value systems are specific to original moral philosophers. Most people lack the ability to think abstractly and systematically upon moral matters, therefore they cannot possible have value systems, meaning a coherent and principal set of moral values. The article "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail:. A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." by Jonathan Haidt makes it clear that most (normal) people are unable to think in moral questions, and simply rationalize their gut feelings. Therefore, a moral system seems to be present only in books from the library, not in flesh and blood people. Alexander Herzberg's study "The Psychology of Philosophers" shows that even the people who wrote such books did not practice such value systems. We may therefore conclude that value systems are alien to human morality, and only appear in sterile discussions furthered among bookworms. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||