Talk:Idola theatri

Philosophy: Logic / Modern Low‑importance

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.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Modern philosophy

Confusing to read edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article takes a lot of work to decipher. It seems like this is fairly similar to appeal to authority, but I'm not exactly sure if that's right so I'm not going to add it to the article. Perhaps instead of using the exact quote of the text in the first paragraph, it could be paraphrased in modern language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.80.134 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes: best and most correct way to do this is with secondary sources, which is the work already called for by the tag on top of the article, which has been there for some time. Adding primary sources simply brought the article one step beyond being a stub, but it is uncontroversial to say that more work needs to be done. Problem I have found is that there are not many good authoritative detailed commentaries on this part of Bacon's work anymore, but there must be some somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic