This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ciao fellow Wikipedia editors-- It is always a pleasure to encounter such a well written and documented article! Bravo! With your kind permission, may I humbly suggest some potential additional text which may be included at the end of the IN SCIENCE section? Thanks in advance and feel free to incorporate any portion of the following text which you feel might be helpful to your readers or worthy of additional extrapolation by other editors. All are welcome to improvise! Ciao and HAPPY EDITING!~2026-26193-27 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)GCLReply

Anthropomorphic language has also been uncovered within the theory of Newtonian mechanics, where it has remained largely undisturbed since Isaac Newton's publication of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. Here Newton argued in favor of the presence of "impressed forces" such as "gravity" and "attraction" which are embodied within the natural realm and that such "forces" serve as the precise physical causal agents which explain the phenomena of bodies in motion. Yet despite his best efforts to "argue from phenomena without feigning hypotheses, and to deduce causes from effects till we come to the very first cause which certainly is not mechanical,"  Newton appears to have also unknowingly incorporated anthropomorphic language into the very foundations of his own philosophy of nature. [1][2]  

As Colin Murray Turbayne notes in an analysis of the Princinpia and Optiks, Newton's methodology relies upon the use of deductive reasoning as utilized by Greek geometers such as Euclid to develop theorems and principles with logical certainty. Nevertheless, the result is nothing less than astonishing from an ontological perspective since, "(t)he physicists' procedure is (now) duplicated in the physical process." Newton paradoxically attributes the same "certainty" which characterizes the use of deductive logic in his methodology to the action of "forces" within the natural realm as a central feature of his natural philosophy. In addition, he further deviates from his own methodology by postulating the presence of such "forces" without ever observing them directly within the natural realm. Turbayne argues that the origin of this confusion on Newton's part has a psychological basis, since we are all immediately aware of our ability to act as causal agents in the natural world, but only infer that other bodies posses the same causal power based upon our observations of their behavior over sequential periods of time. Stated more simply, "When primitive societies ascribe power to clouds, mountains, and rocks we are amused. When Descartes and Newton and their followers ascribe force to bodies, it seems to make sense. But surely, both are cases of what might be called hylopsychism, because in both (cases) something that we find only in ourselves, something that belongs to persons or living things, is ascribed to matter." Turbayne concludes by observing that the presence of such anthropomorphic language within Newton's philosophy of nature has resulted in needless philosophical obfuscation in the form of a dead conceptual metaphor which persists even in modern times. [2][3][4][5][6]  

~2026-26193-27 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done. The connection here seems tenuous at best, and it reads like it was written by a computer. Wikipedia is written by human beings. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

An interesting response but perhaps somewhat short on details. Alas, putting aside the flattering reference to a "computer generated text" by Deacon Vorbis, I can only assure my fellow editors that alas I am human being and that the proposed text is not the product of an AI program. As the philosopher Lewis White Beck once wistfully observed, "If you believe that you are not a machine, but that I am (then) I do not know why you are reading this book." In all seriousness, however, the text may contain specific technical philosophical terms and references to technical terms from the study of physics. In an effort to rectify this, I have linked some of these terms to relevant articles in Wikipedia which may help to clarify their meaning for the lay reader. Alas, Deacon Vorbis also does not expound in any detail as to why the relevance of the text is "tenuous at best." Both of the references confirm that "anthropomorphic language" has crept into Newton's works in the form of such concepts as "impressed force", "gravity" and "attraction". The reference to research by Colin Murray Turbayne also demonstrates that such anthropomorphic language has remained largely undisturbed as an unrecognized dead conceptual metaphor. This is also confirmed in an additional new reference provided from the "Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers" which I have now included. Also note that turbayne's extensive research into tracing the overlooked use of anthropomorphic language disguised as dead conceptual metaphors in both philosophical and scientific theories dating back to the ancient texts of Plato and Aristotle have been confirmed by several international scholars as documented in the additional references included for the last paragraph. See the references here: ^{[4] [7] [8]} In light of these alterations, I have humbly resubmitted the proposed text for additional consideration by other expert editors of philosophy who are likely to have even more enlightened views. As always, best wishes to all and Happy Editing1~2026-26207-26 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)NHPLReply

 Not done. If you're going to reopen this, you need to explain yourself succinctly. No one is going to read a meandering WP:wall of text like this. Furthermore, whatever connection you're trying to make here seems off-topic at best, and dubious at worst. The rest of the article goes over fairly straightforward examples of anthropomorphism in different aspects of life. What you're proposing to add doesn't even remotely begin to explain how this is one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Deacon Vorbis. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:Deacon Vorbis - Thank you in advance for you kind remarks and speedy reply! Like all Wikipedia editors I can hardly lay claim to possessing an exclusive and all encompassing knowledge of a broad topic such as anthropomorphism and the manner in which it has influence mankind's endeavors in the Sciences and Humanitites. Alas, for this reason I am inclined to the view that a more thorough evaluation of the proposed text requires the insights of additional editors who posses a somewhat more specialized and encyclopedic academic understanding of the historic evolution of the philosophy of science over time than perhaps either you or I possess. With this in mind I have issued invitations to editors from other related Wikipedia Projects such as Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Metaphysics and Physics to evaluate the proposed text from a historical perspective and to offer any potential modifications which they deem to be of value to our readers. I am confident that as a seasoned editor and collegiate you shall also welcome insights of other members of the Wikipedia community in the evaluation of what you describe as a meandering WP:wall of text. Perhaps they may prove helpful in metaphorically "pruning" the text without introducing distortions with disrupt it underlying substance mater. With this in mind, I am certain that you would agree it is premature to end a discussion of the proposed text until other editors have had a reasonable change to offer their respective insights. Therefore, as per WP:TALK#PROPOSE, WP:TALK#DISCUSS,WP:TALK#SHARE, WP:TALKPOV, and WP:TALK#POLITE, I hope that you shall refrain from closing discussion on this talk page until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed for other members of the Wikipedia community to contribute to the formulation of a consensus. With this in mind, I shall re-open the discussion. Thank you again for taking the time to express your views and assisting others in their attempts to improve the Wikipeida encyclopedia for all readers regardless of their cultural heritage or philosophical preconceptions on the [[[metaphysical]] ontological paradigm we all share. Ciao and thanks in advance. ~2026-26207-26 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)NHPLReply

Do not reopen this. I advised you not to write walls of text, and you responded with exactly that. Your continued use of overly flowery, almost obsequious language is pretty damned uncalled for too. Be direct, and be succinct. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. Given that this is definitely controversial (I object to it), you should obtain consensus before making similar requests. Any further disruption, and I'll seek a block. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok Johnjbarton many thanks but perhaps you could provide additional details? The fact that you agree does not actually constitute a significant detailed contribution to the discussion. I'm certain that you would welcome an opportunity to extrapolate further on the particular objective standards which form the foundation for your disagreement by citing particular references or providing a detailed refutation of the references which have been provided as per WP:TALK#DISCUSS and WP:TALK#SHARE. As a respected PhD in Physics I am confident that your scholarly expertise in the history of science would prove useful into this exploration of the evolution of anthropomorphic language within modern ontological paradigms in physics. In any event, thanks for trying and feel free to provide more substantial details at your earliest convenience. Respectfully ~2026-26207-26 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)NHPLReply