[tgv]

There's a lot of work to do.

* At least some of the articles in psychology and language have been written by someone with an agenda, or a limited education in the field. E.g., the article about turn taking (https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversati...) talks about "endogenous oscillators" as if it is accepted that that's the solution to the problem.

* Philosophy mentions the Liar Paradox next to Free Will. These two are not quite the same.

* The article on intelligence doesn't even try. "Further reading" refers to a 27 year old report that had to calm the seas after the publication of The Bell Curve.

On the other hand, what's the point of listing everything in language, psychology and philosophy? We know next to nothing about these with any level of certainty. They could just be single entries. Now it seems as if the only thing unknown about language is the origin of the word abacadabra.

[mdp2021]

> unknown ... origin

? Serenus Sammonicus?

Edit: ok, I read the page, I see what was meant.

But a problem emerges, it could get evident seeing as their source is Wikipedia (?! "I know that because somebody told me"?!): it is epistemologically not trivial to state ignorance. Even when the learned does, the protocol is that "John, PhD, on that occasion expressed ignorance".

It may be a reason why once upon a time we had erudition, much more highlighted than nowadays: some attempt towards completeness in the exploration of sources.