Jump to content

Talk:Apophenia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Oorang (talk | contribs)
Line 54: Line 54:


I'm not entirely sure citing the Principedia Discordia is appropriate. While the book is amusing, it is hardly a scholarly work, and the movement is more a parody than a religion. [[User:Izuko|Izuko]] ([[User talk:Izuko|talk]]) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure citing the Principedia Discordia is appropriate. While the book is amusing, it is hardly a scholarly work, and the movement is more a parody than a religion. [[User:Izuko|Izuko]] ([[User talk:Izuko|talk]]) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur, any objections to it's removal?
[[User:Oorang|Oorang]] ([[User talk:Oorang|talk]]) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:49, 18 June 2008

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Logic Unassessed Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Logic

Comments

Removed POV and (admittedly funny) witticisms, expanded slightly.

I'm going to remove simulacrum here and apophenia on simulacrum's sight, I don't see any connection between the two. Maprovonsha172 16:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to remove the wired.com link, because I don't see its relevance. Are we saying this is an instance of apophenia? It might be. Then again, it doesn't seem to be our place to condemn any Princton Unversity research as apophenic nonsense (which would, if nothing else, violate the NPOV). Maprovonsha172 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maprovonsha172,

I agree and I have to say, I fail to see the relevance of the bit on the PEAR research at Princeton. This is about well-controlled parapsychological experiments with objective measures, no subjective seeing of patterns in unpatterned stimuli. Therefore, if there's no objections, I'd like to remove it. - Vaughan 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added last paragraph relating apophenia to other pattern-establishing cognitive phenomena such as narrativization, hindsight bias, interpretation - JAGL 21:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. How exactly is it mentioned? Btw, The German entry on apophenia has a nice image as an example for this phenomenon. Worth uploading? Mabuse 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

people, did you see that apophenia was made in 1958??? 1+9+5+8=23?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.193.57 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apophenia vs. Pareidolia

In neither the apophenia article nor the pareidolia article is there any discussion of the difference between the two. They seem just about identical in meaning. If anyone knows of a difference, it would be a valuable addition to either or both entries.

Eggsyntax 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowlege, pareidolia is a visual/aesthetic and typically religious experience. Seeing the face of Mary on a tortilla, for example, or seeing Christ on the Shroud of Turin.
Apophenia, on the other hand, is a cognitive experience, such as the perception of mysterious connections between things which, in themselves, are not necessarily mysterious. The well-known "Paul (of the Beatles) is Dead" phenomenon, for example, or the "23 Enigma".
In short, pareidolia is "seeing weird stuff when there's nothing there"; apophenia is "making weird connections between stuff that is not causally, and sometimes not even meaningfully, connected."--124.59.25.144 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I can't find a reliable etymology of this word on the net, but I really really would like to see one! V-Man737 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apophenia isn't in the OED, but I think its construction from Greek is pretty straightforward:
απο (a preposition meaning "off, away from") + φαίνω (a verb meaning "display" or "appear", as in the word "phenomenon")
Kingnosis 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clustering Illusion

Pareidolia is rightly included in this section, but the Clustering illusion, which I think is perhaps the most straightforward example of apophenia, is not. Does anyone know why? Should I just write it in? Should the two articles perhaps be merged, or shouldn't this one at least mention clustering and link to it? 97.91.169.247 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use Rorschach images

As a psychologist who administers the Rorschach inkblot test, I want to express my concern about the use of one of the official Rorschach cards as the main picture for this and many other pages (relating to subliminal thought). These cards are not to be displayed publicly in any way because they obstruct the validity of the test. If someone takes this test after having previously seen even one of the images elsewhere, their protocol is spoiled (For this test was normed with individuals who were seeing the cards for the first time, thus eliciting a "fresh" response). If an image of an inkblot must be used, there are plenty of Inkblots that aren't part of the ten card Rorschach inkblot test. 71.141.237.95 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Dr. Atlas 71.141.237.95 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Pareidolia#Rorschach inkblots shouldn't be public. Λυδαcιτγ 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discordianism

I'm not entirely sure citing the Principedia Discordia is appropriate. While the book is amusing, it is hardly a scholarly work, and the movement is more a parody than a religion. Izuko (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, any objections to it's removal? Oorang (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]