Dominant group/Philosophy

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This image shows an academic gown as worn by someone of the degree of doctor of philosophy. The design follows that set forth by the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume which is the dominant style used in the United States. Credit: Gardner Cotrell Leonard.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]"[4]

"Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate, abstract and very general. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose."[1]

"The aim of philosophical inquiry is to gain insight into questions about knowledge, truth, reason, reality, meaning, mind, and value."[2]

Dominant group is a two-word term that may occur in philosophy in two fundamental ways: a philosophically dominant group or a dominant group in some way associated with philosophy.

Dominant group[edit | edit source]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  • Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  • Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  • Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  • Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  • Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  • Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  • Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  • Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  • Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  • Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  • Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  • Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  • Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  • Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  • Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  • Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  • Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  • Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  • Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Philosophy[edit | edit source]

"Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved."[3]


  1. "[t]he love of wisdom",
  2. "[a]n academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism",
  3. "[a] comprehensive system of belief", or
  4. "[a] view or outlook regarding fundamental principles underlying some domain"[5]

is called a philosophy.

Home field[edit | edit source]

“How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?”[6]

The identification of dominant group's own field has not occurred or been systematically verified.

Considering the wide variety of fields within which dominant group occurs, philosophy should be added to the list of possible home fields.

If philosophy is not the home field for dominant group, this must be shown.

Educations[edit | edit source]

“The dominant group in educational philosophy, if one is to judge by the lists of set texts and required readings at English-speaking universities, is the School of Philosophical Analysis represented by Richard S. Peters, Paul H. Hirst, and Michael Oakeshott, with their American contemporaries Israel Scheffler, William R. Perry, and others who are cited in Chapter 7. Deconstruction, Critical Theory and Post-Modernism figure in Chapters 10 and 12, with candinavian thinkers from Kierkegaard to Bohr in Chapter 11.”[7]

"But, in Western societies, when litigation does take place, the plaintiff is unable to be heard because the regulation of the conflict takes place in the idiom of one party-the economically dominant group."[8]

Evolution[edit | edit source]

Recent work by historians of systematics Mary P. Winsor, Ron Amundson and Staffan Müller-Wille [argues that] the usual suspects (such as Linnaeus and the Ideal Morphologists) were very far from being essentialists, and it appears that the so-called "essentialism story" (or "myth") in biology is a result of conflating the views expressed by philosophers from Aristotle onwards through to John Stuart Mill and William Whewell in the immediately pre-Darwinian period, using biological examples, with the use of terms in biology like species.[9][10][11]

"Then it becomes advantageous for some of the forms to avoid competition1 with the dominant group by migrating to a different region, or to a different kind of soil, to modify their floral characters so as to attract a different set of visitors, or to separate their times of blooming so that they may not have to compete with a great many similar flowers for the attention of the same kinds of insects."[12]

"1 In the interaction of organisms in the struggle for existence it strikes me that a law of avoidance of competition is more obvious than that of the survival of the fittest."[12]

Humanities[edit | edit source]

The Division of Research Programs for the National Endowment for the Humanities encourages research and writing in all areas of the humanities, including the study of history, literature, philosophy, religion, and foreign cultures. Through grants to individual scholars and institutions, the division fosters work that enables Americans to understand the world.

"Consequently, an ordered list environment is imperative, because without it, members of the dominant group will begin to characterize the list as frivolous. These are the very people, however, whose presence in the discussion group draws new members."[13]

"To state the problem in another way: who in the eyes of French intellectuals of the period constituted the establishment, the elite, or the dominant group among their number"[14].

"McLaren argued that study of the humanities harms the lower classes by negating the value of their experiences with works that affirm the viewpoints of the dominant group."[15]

"People with antiself disorders are particularly susceptible to manipulation by the dominant group to aid in the suppression and control of progress in the African-American community."[16]

Regions[edit | edit source]

The first question to answer is "What is dominant group's own field?"

It is a scientific or technical term, specifically a two-word scientific or technical term. Its overall field is linguistics, or technical language, terminology. It is and refers to an entity. An overall field allowing application to other fields is regions or the science of regions, usually spatial, but not necessarily always spatial. Spatial science or the science of space may be the appropriate field for dominant group.

"The dominant group in east Tennessee from 1830 to 1860, for example, was Whig; yet east Tennessee's small-farming, non-slaveholding Whigs had little in common with the great Whig planters of the Black Belts."[17]

"On the socio-cultural plane, the dominant group of each region was accused of imputing an inferior status to the others."[18]

Perspectives[edit | edit source]

"We care more about esteem from members of an in-group, and from members of a dominant group."[19]

Hypotheses[edit | edit source]

  1. Dominant group may qualify as a philosophical concept.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 1
  2. 2.0 2.1 A.C. Grayling, Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 1
  3. 3.0 3.1 Anthony Quinton, in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666
  4. "Philosophy, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. December 15, 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-19.
  5. "philosophy, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. December 14, 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-19.
  6. NSF (August 17, 2011). Chapter III - NSF Proposal Processing and Review. Arlington, Virginia, USA: The National Science Foundation. Retrieved 2012-01-27. 
  7. Desmond Keegan (2000). Desmond Keegan. ed. Introduction, In: Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. New York: Routledge. pp. 1-6. ISBN 0-203-98306-8. Retrieved 2012-04-27. 
  8. Patrick Fitzsimons, Graham Smith (April 2000). "Philosophy and indigenous cultural transformation". Educational Philosophy and Theory 32 (1): 25-41. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2000.tb00430.x. Retrieved 2012-04-27. 
  9. Amundson, R. (2005) The changing rule of the embryo in evolutionary biology: structure and synthesis, New York, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521806992
  10. Müller-Wille, Staffan. 2007. Collection and collation: theory and practice of Linnaean botany. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (3):541–562.
  11. Winsor, M. P. (2003) Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology & Philosophy, 18, 387–400.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Charles Robertson (February 1, 1895). The philosophy of flower seasons, and the phaenological relations of the entomophilous flora and the anthophilous insect fauna. 29. 97-117. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  13. PW Conner (June 1, 1992). "Networking in the Humanities: Lessons from ANSAXNET". Computers and the Humanities 26 (3): 195-204. doi:10.1007/BF00058617. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  14. W. Paul Vogt (May 1982). "Identifying scholarly and intellectual communities: a note on French philosophy, 1900-1939". History and Theory 21 (2): 267-78. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  15. Jeanne M. Connell (2006). "Can Those Who Live in Poverty Find Liberation Through the Humanities? Or Is This Just A New Romance With an Old Model?". Educational Studies 39 (1): 15-26. doi:10.1207/s15326993es3901_3. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  16. Linda James Myers (September 1987). "The Deep Structure of Culture: Relevance of Traditional African Culture in Contemporary Life". Journal of Black Studies 18 (1): 72-85. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  17. William B. Hesseltine (February 1944). "Regions, Classes and Sections in American History". The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics 20 (1): 35-44. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  18. R.T. Akinyele (September 1996). "States Creation in Nigeria: The Willink Report in Retrospect". African Studies Review 39 (2): 71-94. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 
  19. Rae Langton (December 2009). "Esteem in the Moral Economy of Oppression". Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1): 273-91. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2009.00171.x.;jsessionid=A6F89594CAFA2869E94630DB43BE1E54.d04t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false. Retrieved 2012-12-19. 

Further reading[edit | edit source]

External links[edit | edit source]

{{Humanities resources}}{{Terminology resources}}