Talk:Hilary Putnam

Turing Machine description / implementation

The description (specification) of the Turing machine does not match the implementation. The description states that it "writes out the sequence '111' after scanning three blank squares and then stopping". The actual machine as written scans three squares in sequence, writing a '1' in any blank square - to ensure the sequence '111' - and then stops.

Trivially, the description as cited can be re-written as: it scans three blank squares, it stops, then it writes out the sequence '111'. This, of course, is ridiculous - it does nothing after it stops. Equally trivially, this flaw can be fixed by putting a comma after the word "squares" and changing "stopping" to "stops".

A Turing machine to perform the corrected specification would be:

State	Input B	Input 1
1	move right; go to state 2	move right
2	move right; go to state 3	move right; go to state 1
3	move right; go to state 4	move right; go to state 1
4	write 1; move right; go to state 5	write 1; move right; go to state 5
5	write 1; move right; go to state 6	write 1; move right; go to state 6
6	write 1; halt	write 1; halt

If you see "write" and "move" as separate actions [which is not the way I've done it all these years, but is certainly one way of doing it] then states 4 and 5 both need to be split into two states.

Also trivially, this is "one way" a Turing machine can be visualized.

Why don't I "be bold" and make the suggested changes? First off, I don't know whether the original author intended to have a correct specification for the given machine or a correct machine for the given specification. Second off, it seems that this article generates strong feelings for some, so I thought I'd socialize this change first. -- Jsdy (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong about the strong feelings. -- Jsdy (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

85th birthday conference

• [1]

I think mentioning the conference was an ok addition on informational grounds. I won't unrevert but maybe someone else can put it back if they think it's appropriate. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Algorithms are not computed

The current passage reads:

The first formulation of such a functionalist theory was put forth by Putnam himself. This formulation, which is now called "machine-state functionalism", was inspired by analogies noted by Putnam and others between the mind and theoretical "Turing machines" capable of computing any given algorithm.

But algorithms can't be computed. In simple language, algorithms are recipes, lists of action to take. They don't have to compute anything (although digital or analogue algorithms, and especially those used in digital computers often compute computable functions). One common counter-example of non-computing algorithm is a "bucket of rain water" algorithm. It's a recipe which says that you have to put out bucket every day and collect it in the evening, then measure the rain water in the bucket. It's perfectly fine, as an algorithm, but it doesn't compute anything. If this example is not enough, consider an algorithm of an infinite loop - what does it compute?

However it is true that Turing machines are computing machines, they don't compute algorithms, they execute algorithms. Thus I'd suggest that the sentence be changed to say that the Turing machine computes a computable function (or simply function, if that's too technical), or that it executes an (digital) algorithm (again, digital classification may be too technical). Also, there's no reason for Turing machine to be quoted, it's a mathematical object just like sine curve or equilateral triangle. :) 79.176.121.21 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Putnam's pragmatic turn?

I have read this article several times and it contain great material, but I believe that two little text is about Putnam's pragmatic turn from early 80s to present day. Most of the article is dedicated to his early writings.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect link in Note 9 for Putnam's 'Brain in a Vat'

I found that Note 9 did not provide the article. Searching for the material I found both a pdf for it at http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf

as well as a working link in the connected Wikipedia page 'Brain in a Vat' http://books.google.it/books?id=h3g3GicFWGoC&hl=en&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Being a newbie, I did not feel confident to make this change myself. Codon3 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Codon3

Multiple Realizability

This section is clear, but it does not explain to the layperson why Putnam's argument is novel or important when applied to the Mind/Body problem, whereas it is obviously not when applied to pure physics problems, for example phase transitions. For example any physical system which behaves identically to the 3D Ising problem will show the same qualitatative behavior (and universality in general). obviously a person's brain, and their "mind" and general identity remain essentially the same despite the fact that all the molecules in their body are continuously replaced, so their physical Identity is never the same. Even if one were to take the view that one molecule is literally identical to another, so in a sense the molecularly renewed person remains physically the same, this would not imply that 1 extra molecule made the person mentally as well as physically different. For all practical purposes one block of ice is the same as another of similar size. , and qualitatively quite different from the same molecules as liquid water. I don't see the difference from me today and me yesterday, or why Putnam's argument is important or substantially different.Paulhummerman (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This lead deserves its status as a featured article

Edit: I hadn't noticed that it already _was_ a featured article.

Out of thousands of leads I've mentally critiqued, this one stands out as a paragon of the form. It actually appears to summarize in an even and succinct form his many contributions, phases, and lines of inquiry (my only hesitation is that this is complex material about which I only know the barest amount). I hereby award my personal gold star to the past contributors. — MaxEnt 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the "lead" for this article is terrific. But it is suggested, as a general rule of thumb, that the lead should be limited in its length to four (4) paragraphs, and this lead for the Putnam article is not. Ie., a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. But perhaps the quality of this particular lead, as pointed out by MaxEnt, demonstrates that sometimes the "rule of thumb" is simply a guideline, and does not always apply. For more information see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Christian Roess (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@MaxEnt and Finnusertop: An IP editor has cut the lead radically. I urge them the discuss here rather than by edit summaries and back-and-forth reverting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't even want to admit why I randomly commented that this was such a good lead, but here goes.

I use the MediaWiki software for my own Evernote-like system, and often my own wiki needs to link to a notable subject, so what I ended up doing was creating a shadow Wikipedia, where my own page links to the Wikipedia page, but I usually grab a few paragraphs of the lead and paste them onto my shadow page so that I have some ability to search locally and I don't have to always go back to Wikipedia, which also, unfortunately, sometimes changes for the worse. Gradually this became a reflex arc—and here's the embarrassing part—I now find I've created 6400 shadow pages where my own wiki contains a miniaturized copy of the Wikipedia lead.

Immediately when I saw this lead while creating my shadow page I went "oh, bother, it's an elephant" and then I tried to delete half the paragraphs, which usually takes about ten seconds, so I started to read in detail looking for the chaff and found basically not a word worth removing, which makes this article unique out of 6400 previous cut-and-paste quickie jobs. It's truly an awesome synopsis of a man who impacted a great many things.

What I did in my own copy of the lead to make the lead visually manageable was to highlight key material in each paragraph. "He is known for ..." became the start of a new paragraph, and that entire first sentence is highlighted in green (the whole point of having your own wiki is to draw attention to what most inspires you). Then I bold faced the following terms (mostly found after the word "in", usually as the first word of the sentence): philosophy of mind, philosophy of mathematics, metaphysics, philosophy of perception, American pragmatism, ethics, Davis–Putnam algorithm, politically controversial figure. Now my own copy of the long version of the lead totally rocks. (Sadly, it didn't notice Putnam's departure, which I must now amend.) I didn't bold face "transactionalism" which heads a boring sentence (to non-specialists), yet seems to have been a important turning point in his philosophical stand for those who would know.

I love Wikipedia, but this kind of mindless guideline compliance drives me batty, so I found a way to care a little bit, but not too much.

I paragraph my own copy however I wish, and in my copy there are basically six paragraphs each summarizing a major life contribution. Of these, only the "philosophy of perception" makes one wish for a shorter summary, maybe something like this:

By 2012, however, he rejected this further commitment, in favor of "transactionalism", see the relevant section for details.

But is forwarding out of the lead even an endorsed Wikipedia style?

Clearly these six meaty paragraphs would present better with some kind of a sub-head system (as the real Wikipedia would use bold face as I have done).

The short form from the IP editor clearly fails to summarize the subject. Maybe in 1/3 of the cases, I find an article with a horrible lead that doesn't summarize and I have to dumpster dive the main text just to make a sufficient mini-lead for my own wiki (what a PITA). With the short lead, this article would fall into my dumpster-diver category. Bear in mind I've done this quick transcription over 6000 times now. What a ghastly admission, but in any case, I would know.

When the ;TLDR IP editor goes to heaven, God has something special in mind for the first eternity (not many people know this, but eternity comes in waves): he or she will have his or her own private 18-hole golf course, only the golf ball will be the size of a grapefruit and the cups will be thimbles. Then in the next eternity, the cups will be the size of oil barrels and he/she won't want to change a thing. — MaxEnt 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The lead currently has seven paragraphs, and according to the guideline it should be kept to four, but I think this isn't compulsory to all articles. It also lacks on biographical material. Other than that, it's good. Just not sure if it's adequate for FA. κατάσταση 17:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @MaxEnt, Finnusertop, and Katastasi: and I will keep my eye on this. Thanks for reverting those edits to the lead, Finnusertop. IMO, no editor needs to mess with the lead until they bring it to the talk page first. If the lead can be made to accommodate the 'guidelines', ie. 4 paragraphs, then I don't have a problem. But it will be difficult to improve on the current version, IMO. Christian Roess (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wife's maiden name: Jacobs or Hall?

" he moved to Harvard in 1965 with his wife, Ruth Anna Jacobs, who took a "

But in the NYTimes obituary, she is identified as Ruth Anna Hall: "Professor Putnam married Ruth Anna Hall, a philosopher who taught at Wellesley College, in 1962. ". Her CV at Wellesley simply has her as R.A. Putnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABShippee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just came here to ask the same question, as I'm working on Ruth Anna Putnam right now. And I've found her PhD thesis listed as being by Ruth Anna Hall Mathers here and here. PamD 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Status as an atheist

It seems that toward the end of his life, he became somewhat religious. https://forward.com/culture/14256/spiritual-encounters-of-a-philosopher-of-science-02570/ http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198578/remembering-hilary-putnam-harvard-philosopher-and-religious-jew https://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/hilary-putnam-1926-2016_b_9457774.html https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/hilary-putnam-1926-2016-philosopher-sciences-late-life-return-his-native-judaism Yaakovaryeh (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Putnam did become a religious Jew later in life, and certainly was not an atheist. However, he didn't believe in an afterlife (denial of an afterlife among Jews is quite common) nor did he appear to believe in a personal or a loving God. I would describe him as an agnostic deist.

Influences/doctoral Students Additions

Something I noticed glancing Putnam's page, was that some of his well known students Alva Noë and Ned Block were missing. I'd also make the recommendation of adding Block and McDowell to his influences, as he cited them as being big influences on him late in his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreamingUrethra (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

External links

As a featured article this is to be "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". I read the article and found it a good read but sometimes things just "creep in" and we end up with link farming.

The "External links" section needs to be more involved when reviewing articles to include: ELPOINTS #3, links to avoid, and EL official, with a goal of minimizing the number of links. I don't see that fifteen "External links" exactly follows along those lines so there needs to be some article incorporation or trimming. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

Hi article-watchers, I am starting a review of this article for WP:URFA/2020, a task force which looks at featured articles that were promoted before 2016. I have made some edits to the article during my review, and I hope others will review my edits to ensure I did not change the meaning of anything. I also have some questions below:

• The article says Putnam was born in Chicago and grew up in Paris, but does not mention when he moved to France. Do we know when this happened?
• "The Harvard administration considered these activities disruptive and attempted to censure Putnam, but two other faculty members criticized the procedures." Do we know which faculty members this was?
• Is encyclopedia.com the best source we can find for this information? I think there are more high-quality sources available.
• The life section seems to have lots of gaps, as there is very little information on his life in the 1980s and in the 2000s. I understand that there are other sections which address his theories and accomplishments, but I think this article needs to be organised chronologically; afterall, this is a biography article.
• A similar problem to what is outlined above, some of Putnam's accomplishments do not include dates on when they were first published or gained widespread fame. For example, when was the "brain in a vat" thought experiment first proposed? When did he show that "there are many levels of the constructible hierarchy that add no subsets of the integers"? When were his theories, outlined in the "Philosophy of mathematics" section, first published?

• The references are in various styles. Can someone standardise the references for this article?
• I am surprised that there isn't a Legacy section. Are there any monuments, statues, roads, or awards named for this person? Any information on his legacy within different groups and places?

Those are just some initial thoughts, I look forward to doing a deeper when the above concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Diff since notice, issues unaddressed, new uncited text added; listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the very little information on his life in the 1980s and in the 2000s issue is really a problem. There can be a "life ends at tenure" effect with academic biographies; once someone is established in a particular place and any kids are born, the only events that get documented are career events.

It's probably too early for statues and roads, but there may be awards or scholarships. I'll look into that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise, I have found nothing of note in this regard. I was expecting at least a few things along the lines of a "Hilary Putnam Memorial Scholarship" or a "Hilary Putnam Lecture Series", but nothing like that has turned up yet. What's been named after Putnam have been arguments, which the article already talks about. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned whether past talk page messages have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we know this is his blog? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, did a quick search and managed to find this paper where he mentions the blog. It's on the first page so should be viewable from the preview even if you don't have access to the full paper. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That helps ... we might add that as a supplementary note to those citations as "proof" ... I can do it later, but for now am fuzzy-brained with COVID ... thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

His blog, so I added it to External links in such a way that it verifies our use of the blog as a source in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The "References" section was actually completely redundant with the footnoted citations enumerated in "Notes", so I cut it and renamed "Notes" to "References". XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine ... in the "olden days", that was sometimes done, and because that was the single worse FAC I ever experienced, I doubt anyone was worrying about that particular detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the growing list of uncited info in the infobox; there is probably plenty more than seen in this recent diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there another list of his doctoral students somewhere, besides this? XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not know; I have always found the idea of such a list in infoboxes troubling, because how do we know it's comprehensive? My view is that unless there is independent coverage about them as notable that we can cite, we should leave them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That infobox is a classic infobox nightmare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather resentful over the existence of "influenced" and "influenced by" fields in infoboxes. All too often, that's too vague a concept to fit into a neatly tabular format. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Who will object if we delete the lot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I could understand if the entry were significant enough that it warranted a well-cited paragraph in the text, but not infobox material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think of infoboxes as conceptually part of the lede, as they share the task of summarizing the text. Accordingly, my inclination would be to remove everything from the infobox that the text does not explicitly cover. We're not a database like the Mathematics Genealogy Project. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

BINGO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to this in the next few days if nobody objects (or beats me to it). XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this or if it should be put in the FAR page, but I have some concerns about the sourcing in the article that could be a fruitful avenue to improving the article and ensuring it meets the FA criteria. I recently rewrote the philosophy of mathematics section of the article because it contained some pretty large errors. For example, it presented a form of the indispensability argument which is due to Mark Colyvan and attributed it to Putnam. However, Putnam in multiple places distanced himself from that form of the argument (some details on this can be seen at Quine–Putnam indispensability argument#Continued development of the argument). It also said he defended a clause in that form of the argument which claims we should have ontological commitment to only the entities of science. But, according to Putnam himself, he never endorsed anything like that in his life (see here). I think the main reason why these errors were able to survive in the article is because they were cited to primary sources. This is obviously in violation of the requirement that interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources, otherwise it is basically just original research. Looking over the article, it seems that there may be some other areas that rely solely on interpretations of primary sources without being backed up by a secondary source. However, unlike the indispensability argument, I personally do not have the knowledge on Putnam or the secondary literature on his work to fix these instances. Therefore, I'm writing here to suggest that a good way of improving the article would be to find places in the article which rely only on primary sources and finding secondary sources to back them up, to make sure that the text is genuinely verifiable and not an incorrect interpretation of a primary source. Hope this is useful to those currently working on the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the name "Alan Garfinkel" to the list of Hilary Putnam's students

I added the name "Alan Garfinkel" to the list of Hilary Putnam's students. (PhD 1975, Putnam was principal supervisor) Agarfink (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an independent (third-party) source? Unless there are secondary mentions of the significance of Putnam as a mentor, the content would not be due weight in this article (although it may be appropriate at Alan Garfinkel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy- Here are a couple of references. But it looks like you are scrapping the list of students altogether.

Thanks

Alan

https://philarchive.org/archive/STUBR-4

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Place_of_Probability_in_Science/MT2oJfY0Zf8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=garfinkel+putnam&pg=PA146&printsec=frontcover Agarfink (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Real sources !!  :) Perhaps you can work out with XOR'easter if something there should be working in to the body of the article. Suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the references! I am not at all sure how to handle the matter of students. He had more than a dozen that probably qualify as wiki-notable, judging from the MGP list. (Not everyone on that list already has an article here, but that list doesn't include all of his students.) Maybe we could have a paragraph somewhere that starts, Putnam had N doctoral students, including X who worked with Putnam on Y.... That would depend upon having a complete list of his doctoral students, which I haven't been able to turn up, though it's entirely possible that it exists and I've overlooked it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

PLP

By the way: the story of Progressive Labor inside SDS is interesting in its own right, not only at the end when it must have been seen as the sane alternative to Weather. Read about this story some time ago, perhaps in "Radical America" (it's all online). --Ralfdetlef (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Reichenbach and Positivism

Logical Positivism was the leading philosophy in much of the US (Quine, Sellars, etc.), but in the 1950 in Europe Sartre, Heidegger and Wittgenstein were the big guys.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

تطوير الذات

اهتمام Adam hash my (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)