Talk:Veritism

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not a neologism[edit]

The term was originally coined by Hamlin Garland, in the late 19th century, to describe his literary technique. There was a Veritism Foundation (apparently now superseded by the Foundation for Science & Theology), whose ideas seem to have more to do with theological concerns. I don't how the present article relates to their ideas (if at all). No copy of the book appears to be available locally, so I've been unable to confirm anything.WQUlrich (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

I removed two quotes that were apparently from Nick Harrison (the Christian writer) because, being used in an Anti-Christian context, they seemed to be a mild sort of personal attack. WQUlrich (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own thought on this:

Veritism is a new word for Rationalism, an old school of thought; but takes it a step further into the realm of athiestic existentialism with a dose of fatalism. You are not a robot. You have feelings. With which of your 5 senses do you observe your feelings? yet they exist. Its good to be skeptical. Spectral photography shows that there have been things that existed that could not be sensed by the 5 senses (rather mundane but think about it, other things unthought of by people exist, whether or not people think of them) Its rather presumptuous to think that the only things that can exist are those things that can be perceived by humans. Jon Draper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.127.123 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, confusion viz H Garland[edit]

Is there a particular reason for this article to stay up, given that the organization is defunct and, historically, had no significant influence, contributions, etc.? I only stop to bring it up because I was looking around for information on (epistemological) veritism and ended up with this in front of me, somewhat confused. Veritism [sic] - normative framework for social epistemology, see Alvin Goldman - wouldn't necessarily merit an especially lengthy article, but I'm fairly certain even a stub on the topic would include somewhat more unique/useful information than what's currently occupying the space. 2armitage (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]