text:
Talk:Nightmare

Per reference board request, removal of uncited research
There was a claim in the introduction, un-cited, that "psychological nomenclature" differentiates nightmares and "bad dreams" by virtue of whether the dream may, in the right conditions, wake the dreamer. I am not aware of such nomenclature, albeit, I am not a psychologist. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How to avoid nightmares in the 19th century
From the 1881 Household Cyclopedia. it bad Great attention is to be paid to regularity and choice of diet. Intemperance of every kind is hurtful, but nothing is more productive of this disease than drinking bad wine.Of eatables those which are most prejudicial are all fat and greasy meats and pastry.These are needed to be avoided, or eaten with caution. The same may be said of salt meats, for which dyspeptic patients have frequently a remarkable predilection, but which are not on that account the less unsuitable.

Moderate exercise contributes in a superior degree to promote the digestion of food and prevent flatulence; those, however, who are necessarily confined to a sedentary occupation, should particularly avoid applying themselves to study or bodily labor immediately after eating. If a strong propensity to sleep should occur after dinner, it will be certainly bettor to indulge it a little, as the process of digestion frequently goes on much better during sleep than when awake.

Going to bed before the usual hour is a frequent cause of night-mare, as it either occasions the patient to sleep too long or to lie long awake in the night. Passing a whole night or part of a night without rest likewise gives birth to the disease, as it occasions the patient, on the succeeding night, to sleep too soundly. Indulging in sleep too late in the morning, is an almost certain method to bring on the paroxysm, and the more frequently it returns, the greater strength it acquires; the propensity to sleep at this time is almost irresistible. Those who are habitually subject to attacks of the night-mare ought never to sleep alone, but should have some person near them, so as to be immediately awakened by their groans and struggles, and the person to whom this office may be entrusted should be instructed to rouse the patient as early as possible, that the paroxysm may not have time to gain strength.

Nightmare Pictures
It's kind of misleading that there are pictures of people experiencing sleep paralysis when the topic is in fact nightmares. Though the two are similar, they're quite different.
 * As originally defined by Dr.Johnson ih his Dictionary and understood by Erasmus Darwin, Henry Fuseli, and others, they are the same phenomenon. Jclerman 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have experienced nightmares, night terrors, sleep paralysis, lucid dreams, regular dreams, and a large combination of the above. I have researched dreaming, lucid dreaming, nightmares and insomnia for my psych university studies (as well as for personal interest), read countless articles pertaining to dreams and dream related material, and can tell you that sleep paralysis and nightmares are uncategorically different and that empirical psychological studies recognise them as such. The terms 'sleep paralysis' and 'nightmare' may indeed have had the same meaning at some point in the distant past, but a lot of advances have been made in the area of dream research over the past 15 years. I really can't stress how incredibly inaccurate it is to use the terms 'sleep paralysis' and 'nightmare' interchangably. In addition, I'm fully confident that our understanding and definition for these two terms have altered somewhat since their initial conception in, what... the 1700's? --Rathilien 02:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1: I don't believe the terms are currently used interchangably without qualification. If you find it to be otherwise please quote the place/source for correction/clarification.
 * 2: Please quote references for your other statements, in order for the information to be incorporated into the article.
 * Jclerman 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why two ?
Why are their two different versions of the same painting? raptor 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the artist painted two different versions. 69.9.28.7 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, this is not the article for the painting, we dont need a second one. Removed it.  99boy (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed sections
''I have removed the following sections, because they are copyvios taken from this site. If someone wants to rephrase them to aviod the ©-violation – be my guest. I also added a link to the site, as it was very informative. --Salleman 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)''

Etymology
The "mare" in "nightmare" is not a female horse, but a mara, an Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse term for a female spirit that sat on sleepers' chests, causing them to have bad dreams.

A nightmare is called a mareridt in Danish, a cauchemar in French, a pesadilla in Spanish, and an Alpdruck or Alptraum in German. The Alp is a demonic being which presses upon sleeping people so that they cannot utter a sound. These attacks are called Alpdrücke (nightmares). In Italian, the word incubo recalls the Incubus, a demon supposed to lie upon sleepers, especially women, and rape them.

 * Maybe, and maybe not. There is also the traditional mari llyd of wales and another unspellable Irish skull of a horse with humans animating it, similar to the hong kong lion dancers, that is a potental source for the word. Also notice, although this citation claims it has no relation to the horse, look at the illustration used. Look to the left side. What do we see ?

 * Yes, a demon horse. A night mare. I'm not going to fight this etymology, it's too much work. But I don't accept it as the be-all and end-all of the discussion, either. 203.160.80.171 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Folk remedies
A folk remedy has it that by stopping up the keyhole, placing one's shoes with the toes facing the door, and then getting into bed backwards one can protect oneself against nightmares or "Mortriden." [mare rides]. Or one can put something made from steel, for example an old pair of scissors, in one's bed straw. A third remedy suggests that a person suffering from nightmares should urinate into a clean, new bottle, hang the bottle in the sun for three days, carry it—without saying a word—to a running stream, and then throw it over one's head into the stream.

Categorization
I don't want to keep clashing with [User:Jclerman|Jclerman]] here, but categorizint nightmares into Category:Neuroscience is just too broad. In essence, just about any human event can be categorized into "neuroscience". I recategorized this into the more specific Category:Sleep disorders. Semiconscious ( talk  ·  home) 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The nightmare (and its "menagerie" of hag, mara, incubus, succubus, and hundred of other "entities" appear to dreamers during episodes of the "nightmare (in the original, i.e. older meaning of the term as used by Johnson, Erasmus Darwin, and Fuseli)" which has been called, by Mary Shelley, "waking dream". It is considered only in a few cases a sleep disorder. Thus the entry under "notes" in the article. Jclerman 10:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See references in the Hag article. Jclerman 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly we disagree. I'm not sure why you continue to reference Mary Shelley as though she is an expert on the matter of neuroscienctific principles. The papers you reference do not have anything to do with the folkloric creature "Nightmare". I've taken this to arbitration, so it's a moot point now. I'm sorry I'm not explaining my self in such a way as to make you truly understand what I'm trying to express. Semiconscious ( talk  ·  home) 07:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Semiconcious here. There is a fair amount of neuroscientific research into dreaming and nightmares, but if there is a more specific category available it should go there. I don't disagree with making the category Sleep disorders a subcategory of Category:Neuroscience. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Psychology also makes much more sense than Neuroscience. They are different topics entirely, and this article would be more appropriate there. Semiconscious ( talk  ·  home) 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific information? - Article not about its subject
There's not enough scientific information here about nightmares.

 * there's hardly any important information it seems.

 * I agree

 * I am absolutly astounded by how bad this article is. It has almost nothing to do with its subject. Mostly it talks about sleep paralysis (which I probably spelled wrong) which is a totally differant thing (noticable from the fact that it is called sleep paralysis and not nightmares). This article could be almost entirly scrapped and started over.--Matt D 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Couldn't agree more. As noted above, the article is mostly about Sleep paralysis, which already has its own article, and mentions almost nothing about actual nightmares . I vote for getting that tag on the page that says the article needs an expert (Sorry, I don't know wikipedia enough to know the term...), and having said expert rewrite most if not all of the article. --Devnevyn 10:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Yet another voice saying this article is complete garbage. Who had the bright idea that the article about "Nightmare" should be about its usage 1-2 centuries ago?  The only thing in the entire article that actually talks about nightmares (current usage) is the introduction!  Beyond the etymology of the term, which we will want to keep, the historical usage is the least significant part of any reasonable article.  Any other votes for scrapping this article?  I'm thinking dropping it completely would be appropriate.  Is there another version out in Wikipedia-land somewhere that might provide real information?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.106.74 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
 * '''nightmare defined by the M-W online:
 * nightmare
 * One entry found for nightmare.
 * Main Entry: night·mare
 * Pronunciation: 'nIt-"mer
 * Function: noun
 * Etymology: Middle English, from 1night + 1mare
 * 1 : an evil spirit formerly thought to oppress people during sleep
 * 2 : a frightening dream that usually awakens the sleeper
 * 3 : something (as an experience, situation, or object) having the monstrous character of a nightmare or producing a feeling of anxiety or terror
 * Jclerman 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I put it there. --Shay Guy 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. In a roundabout way, it discusses something quite different and dated. The whole article is unfocused (at this point-29 Dec 07). Plus the little linguistic foray in one paragraph which has no place here. I've seen similar things like that be put into other articles and then removed almost unanimously very quickly. Wikipedia is not a translator....
 * "This type of waking dream is called mora in Greek, mareridt in Danish, nachtmerrie in Dutch, malson in Catalan, noćna mora in Croatian, cauchemar in French, mardraum or mareritt in Norwegian, pesadilla in Spanish, Albdruck, Albtraum (from Álf, Old Norse for Elf) or Nachtmahr (older) in German, incubo in Italian, mardröm in Swedish, painajainen in Finnish, luupainaja in Estonian, pesadelo in Portuguese, èmèng in Mandarin, gawi in Korean, karabasan or kabus in Turkish, kanashibari in Japanese, ngok mung in Cantonese, bakhtak in Persian and bangungot in Tagalog."

I'm removing this paragraph but leaving it here for later reference if needed. I think this whole article should be scrapped too.... Chris b shanks (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The M-W online is not 200 yrs old. The ethnic minorities use those names when describing the waking dreams to their physicians, to their social workers, to the police, etc. The anthropologists use those "translations" when describing the phenomenon in different contemporary cultures. Deleting the article would be a gross mistake. If you can't write a better one, wait for an expert to do it. Jclerman (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Nonsense? It is impolite to address someone that way on Wikipedia.  (1) Please see Wiki Policy 'Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictonary,' (and read it) especially the part where it explains, with respect to Wikipedia, "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." In contrast, Wikipedia is not (but Wiktionary is) "about the actual words or idioms in their title. [In Wiktionary] the article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth."  (2) Furthermore, if the reader wants to see what a 'nightmare' is in other languages, they could just CLICK on that language on the left-hand side of the screen then read the title of the article.  (3) I have seen such a paragraph get removed from another article with nearly unanimous support (sorry, but I honestly can't remember at this point which article that was) as it is quite unencyclopedic.  (4) This is not a specialty 'anthropological' encyclopedia, nor is it an etymological dictionary.  (5) Wikipedia is a reference for the average reader, not specifically physicians, social workers, and police looking for translations.  (6) If such translations are necessary and important for such professionals using Wikipeida, why does a heavily edited/trafficked page such as rape not have a list of translations into every conceivable other language, which would most definitely be used on a more frequent basis by 'physicians,' 'social workers,' and 'police?'  (7) Checking this article's history, other editors have made the same move, only to be reverted by you (e.g. SweetNeo85 on 23 Sept 2006, "Removed unneeded translations").  (8) Finally, on your comment about waiting for an expert--the history also records that you simply remove request for expert tags if they're put up (e.g. 17 July 2007), when this article is desperately in need of such help (I don't claim that I'm an expert). Chris b shanks (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * As there is no response, I'm removing it again. If we still disagree, we should do a request for comment.  Chris b shanks (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nightmares: one of the bodies defence mechanisms?
In the instant that i am woken byhaha a nightmare, my first sensation besides panic, is of excessive heat. This has become such a noticable occurance that I can only conclude that the purpose of the nightmare was to wake me up to prevent damage to my body or brain. The cause of the heat was not illness but external factors, i.e. too many blankets, the heating left on, the cat sleeping on me! Thus after being woken and feeling hot, I removed the cause of the heat and returned to peaceful sleep. Are nightmares warnings that our brains are overheating? Is it a biological safety device? The thought intrigues me. Could we be causing the nightmares of our children and babies by trying too hard to keep them warm and tucked in at night? Any thoughts? 144.134.135.148 02:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Anne.

 * While intriguing, this is known as "Original Research" and is not appropriate to include in Wikipedia. If you can get this idea published in a mainstream journal on psychology or neuro-science and if it then becomes notable, then someone else (not you!) could reference it in the article.

---The reason you're waking up is not because of the nightmare but because your body is uncomfortable. You just happen to remember the dream *because* you woke up, not the other way around. If you slept through the nightmare, you would have woken up at your normal time and not remembered the dream. You only remember the dream because you woke up and you woke up for whatever reason, not because of the dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.12.202 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I gotta say I remember dreams I didn't wake up from all of the time--209.181.16.93 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dying in a dream?
"(although not proven, many people believe that dying within a dream is an impossible feat, as there have never been any cases of a person reporting the feelings of the wound or disease that killed them in their dreams)"

I'm not sure what exactly counts as dying in a dream, but I once had a dream in which somebody shot me in my head (good thing it's not a premonition, yet), followed by a brief yet intense pain in my head, after which I began to faint, and my senses weakened rapidly, as if fleeing my body. I don't remember anything afterwards, which pretty much makes me good as dead. Does anybody else have a similar experience?

Maybe because we don't know what dying is like so our subconcious can't replicate it?

The reason you saw that you were shot in your sleep is that when you get hurt in your sleep the body tries to make a quick explanation for it. When you stub your toe you dont feel this because you know what happened, but since you are asleep the body will make up a story (if you have a strong imagination)such as being shot. You probably were just dehydrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.122.227 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite paragraph
The paragraph under the "Historic Use of term" section that lists the translation of nightmare in 17 different languages is poorly written as just listing information in a paragraph is of bad form. Also the information to me is arbitrary. In an article that is talking about nightmares, there doesn't need to be translations of the word into multiple languages. So either this info should go, or it needs to be placed in a small table. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Style is in the brain of the beholder. Moreover, the translations should stay. They are not language translations but anthropologic translations, i.e., they are not strict equivalents but they name the particular regional and/or cultural dependent demons. Jclerman 03:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghost?
Hi I would just like to know if anyone knows of, or has experienced a ghost pinning them down and not being able to move? Because this morning I woke up at about 5am but I didn't bother checking the time because for some reason lately I've been waking up at that exact time alot. So I just rolled over and tried to go to sleep, which was weird because it felt like I got to sleep straight away. Then when I think I was changing positions, all of a sudden I couldn't move, and I was in a uncomfortable position but I was just stuck. I could only move my eyes and maybe head slightly, and as I was all paralysed I could see a weird round light skim across the roof of my bedroom. It was like a bright blueish-white colour and from my position looked about the size of a tennis ball. So in this time of me trying to move I could see it skimming to directly accross my head, but as soon as I breathed out a help, I felt a release and I could move again and I was awake. This was really weird for me and scary as I could remember every vivid detail and it did not even felt like I had gone to sleep, and when I woke I figured out that this would have happenned in no less than 10 minutes of me waking the 1st time. Also the way I tried crying out for help felt like I was being choked, which I could tell from the sound of my own voice. And I also remember conciously thinking at the time as soon as I saw the light of aliens or ghosts, which made it feel like I was awake. I'm still not sure wether I was awake or asleep during this experience. I don't have alot of nightmares, I can't even remember the last time I did and I didn't watch any scary movies the night before. Can anyone help? TeePee-20.7 08:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You describe the classic nightmare, now usually called sleep paralysis with hypagogic hallucinations. The term used by Mary Shelley in the intro to Frankenstein is more descriptive: waking dream. You were both awake and dreaming at the same time. See the articles linked above and the references you'll find in them. It's nothing paranormal but normal physiology. Only it it happens too frequently it might reflect one of the hypersomnias sleep disorders Jclerman 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh ok cool, thanks heaps yeah it sounds like I had one of them. TeePee-20.7 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is only one thing that bugs me. When you first told me about this type of nightmare after reading the information and seeing that I fitted the criteria of these and had many of the symptoms, I chose to believe that. Not only because I showed the symptoms, but mainly because I was scared and wanted to believe it was this. But just tonight I was watching TV and the channel I was watching had a documentary on aliens, and one of the experiences was very similar to mine which made me remember my own. And which also made me remember the one thing that I chose to ignore and forget about my experience. Why did this all end when I cried my breathless help?
 * TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving your eyes, especially making vocal noises, will help you get out of sleep paralysis. Happens to me rarely, just do those things and it goes away. That's what happens when you cried your breathless help.69.120.222.239 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MultiVitamins may be causing your sleep problems
I don't see a lot of information on the subject of vitamins related to sleep problems but luckily my wife did a lot of research on this (in her own best interest -- she was afraid I might hurt her thrashing around in bed) and she mentioned it to me. I had been taking a multivitamin every day before we were married because I didn't feel that my bachelor diet was very complete. Thankfully my wife is an excellent cook using plenty of veggies so I stopped the vitamins and my night terrors stopped immediately. Just out of curiosity I even tried taking just a half vitamin in the morning instead of night and the problems returned same day.

I used to always have a mild to extreme terror about 1.5 hours after going to sleep. I don't know exactly what vitamin/mineral was responsible for this but from what I've seen it could be Magnesium or maybe Vitamin B.

At any rate, if you suffer from Nightmares/Night Terrors do yourself a favor and stop all supplements for a few days and see if it helps.

Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.80.64 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins
I heard rumors about the origins / epistemology of Nightmares means "Night" "Mares", where people in the old days use to see scary Black Horses in their dreams (?carrying fear, ?representing fears, ?aurora of fear)and often describe as having fiery organeish burning eyes, manes and hoofs. If I remember correctly, this probably has some relevance to the headless horseman origins.

Has anyone heard of this folklore mythology rumor before? My guess people see horses probably, because horses are common back in the old days, and psychologists says horses are very good at bonding with their riders (probably because of their intelligence and learning). But since they almost fear everything, it is a probably a natural conditioned response to have fear, when you see horses running in fear and panic.

The best picture I can find that relates to Nightmares. Though some claim they have horns, others disagree. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heroes Might and Magic 3 Inferno, Nightmares.
 * Ghost Riders the horse rider

About the picture
The first picture and its (almost comical) caption has got to go. It's what really makes this article appear to be the work of an amateur. "A scared child, such as those who suffer from nightmares"...seriously...

What's next? "A fat belly, as it might appear after having had too many pancakes."

The picture is neither directly linked to the article, nor is it needed (we all know what scared children look like). I suggest it is removed. The - more relevant - Fuseli painting is more than enough to illustrate this article. Andailus (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, the child isn't even in bed, it has nothing at all to do with nightmares. I've removed the picture.Feyre (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

definition
I don't see why they are defining nightmare soo loosely everyone i talk to uses nightmare and bad dreams as different with nightmares being scarier also I've been trapped in numerous nightmares not able to awaken so clearly it doesnt require waking up. --209.181.16.93 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref #1 Stephens, Laura. (2006) "Nightmares"
The first reference in the page leads to an empty page. I've noticed that the Internet Archive has the original page archived here. I'm not familiar with protocol here; is it acceptable to use pages in the internet archive as reference sources? Tinkba (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corroborated the information, it is an empty page. Look, I have tried to post the right citation, but am afraid I am inexperience in this, so I leave you the web reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20070831193305/http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nightmare.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.96.124 (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of Harry Potter as a literary reference
Surely, there are better literary references to nightmares other than Harry Potter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.85.112 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC) --- I was wondering if the literary example section was necessary at all. Right now, it just seems like an excuse to mention The Hunger games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.228.111 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Treating Nightmares
Support - huge overlap--Zymurgy (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

done --Zymurgy (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
Per this addition: I know that de Goya's work probably represents grief more than sleep but, wrong or right, it's still one of the most widely-recognized images within the theme. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this image was in our literature book next to the Poe's Raven XD --109.60.111.91 (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

NightMARE is Slavic goddess Mora or Mara or Morana
Night-MARE is Slavic goddess Mora ("nightmare") or Mara or Morana.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nightmare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nightmare.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ex- your falling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.10.188 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Freud and Jung
This article has a brief section on Freud and Jung, but could say a lot more on what these two major figures said about dreams. It could, for example, say that whereas Freud saw dreams as wish fulfilment, Jung said that dreams could stem from conflicts - indeed, J.A. Hadfield, in his book on dreams and nightmares, says that he was personally informed by Jung that a principle reason why he fell out with Freud was this difference in their interpretation of dreams, Freud stressing dreams as wish fulfilment, but Jung allowing for the possibility that dreams could be conflicts. Vorbee (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The book to which I was referring was Hadfield, J.A. (1973) Dreams and Nightmares. Penguin. ISBN: 9780 - 140202-946.

File:A boy having a nightmare.png
I don't see how this odd image really helps the article. It isn't really illustrative or anything. Master of Time  ( talk ) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by YangyangF (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple watch
This is interesting: a piece of software has gotten approval as a treatment for nightmares. It runs on a smart watch, senses through things like pulse rate that you are having a nightmare, and makes the watch vibrate on your wrist to jostle you out of the nightmare without actually waking you up. I'd prefer a more neutral source than a press release, but the approach seems worth mentioning. It would be helpful if sources mention anything about whether disrupting REM sleep that way has its own consequences. I have also heard that Fitbit-like sleep trackers aren't even that reliable at detecting when a person is asleep, so specifically detecting nightmares seems like an accomplishment. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nightmare


text:
Talk:Epistemology

Link to German article on Epistemology
In the list of links to articles in other languages German seems to be missing even though there is an article called "Erkenntnistheorie" that links to this English article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkenntnistheorie). I could not figure out how to add German to the list myself or I am lacking the necessary admin privileges. Maybe anybody who has the necessary privileges to edit that list could help out? Greetings Sidonius (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, the language links are taken from wikidata. The English article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. The German article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361. One way to fix this would be to link the German article to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. Before you do that, you should probably check to corresponding talk pages to see whether there is a reason for having the German article linked to a different item. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look into it. The English page that redirects to Epistemology is linked to the wikidata-page where the German article points to. Probably a left over from earlier times. Greetings Sidonius (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The new paragraph on Descartes
Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period. Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular,  but both debates have been related and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology. Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths. In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato. However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism". In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.

References specific to notes
Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevancy
The time and effort you have invested in this section are inspiring and your recent adjustments solve the problem of the initial version. As the text in the paragraph suggests, the way the topic of the paragraph is related to epistemology seems to be rather complicated and indirect. Let's see if I can get it straight: It seems that this chain of connection is not made in a single source that is cited but several sources need to be combined to sketch out this path. Are you sure that this rather distant relation justifies adding a full paragraph to a wide overview article like this one (see WP:PROPORTION)? This issue could be avoided by instead adding this discussion to an article that has the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind as a main topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Contemporary epistemology is part of epistemology
 * 2) The internal-external debate in epistemology belongs to contemporary epistemology
 * 3) The internal-external debate in epistemology is not the same as the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind but there are relations between them
 * 4) Various arguments are used in the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind
 * 5) Some of these argument refer to Descartes' dualism

 * Descartes is such an important figure that I do not see a need to prove the relevancy of a paragraph on Descartes in that section about how contemporary epistemology is historically informed. At the same time, claiming that Descartes had epistemological questions or finding contemporary epistemological concepts in Descartes' philosophy is something else. It is, in Barry Stroud's terminology, a "historically 'oriented' contemporary epistemology", a very different and controversial subject: many say that it is incorrect to use past philosophies in that manner. I am not saying that we should not present all pertinent view points on this, but it should be covered elsewhere, not in that section. This section is different. It must consider Descartes' philosophy as standardly seen by historians and present sources that discuss how this could inform, if at all, contemporary epistemology.  I am not trying to infer that Descartes' dualism informed contemporary epistemology. On the contrary, contemporary epistemology is centred around justification and there are sources that say that Descartes was far away from contemporary justification concerns. So, the paragraph is just being plain direct about it. There is no OR at all, but I know that is not your concern. It is relevancy. In view of the importance of Descartes, the question whether it has informed contemporary epistemology is relevant.  Let me add that I looked at Descartes' skepticism to see if it could have informed contemporary epistemology. Sources such as Popkin explain that Descartes used skepticism in a very special manner, not to deny knowledge of the laws of transitory external phenomena, but to gain certainty in the mind side. It is paradoxical to use skepticism to gain certainty, but that is what sources say.  Descartes' argument is that God gave us a priori knowledge and skepticism is a systematic way to unveil this gift of God. No source explains how this part of Descartes' view might have informed contemporary epistemology or even philosophy of mind and I guess it did not.It is not that sources completely ignore this. For example, Robert Audi wrote "... Descartes’s well-known denial that God would allow such a world, but I cannot pursue it here." On the other hand, we have sources that explain how Descartes' dualism informed the internalist/internalist debate. The more I think about it, the content of that paragraph is not that Descartes has informed contemporary epistemology, but that he has not, except indirectly through the externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind. This is clearly relevant in that section and interesting.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with again. And this whole new excursus here is nothing more than WP:OR in my view. Descartes was no skeptic at all. He recognized the challenge of Skepticism (which is an ever present challenge which Epistemology cannot avoid), and tried to provide paths for the achievement of knowledge and certainty, which are the goals of Epistemology. I went through the Britannica entry on Epistemology again, and it is overall much better that what we have here, in my view. There is no mention in it whatsoever of  the internal-external debate in so-called "comtemporary epistemology" as far as I can see. Thank you, warshy (¥¥)  19:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The part about Descartes' skepticism is from Popkin, which you suggested. Moreover, the paragraph, referring to Popkin, says what you say: Descartes found his base for certainty in the cogito. You further say that Descartes had the same goal as epistemology, but if by "epistemology" here you mean contemporary epistemology, this is controversial and requires attribution and it's not the subject of that section anyway. This section is not about whether or not contemporary epistemological questions or concepts can be located in past philosophies. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is a big mess, in my view, nothing else unfortunately. Simple misunderstandings. warshy (¥¥) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, I am going to take into account what was said here. The paragraph seems to fight in a weak manner (by referring to philosophy of mind) to say that Descartes informed contemporary epistemology. I think that Phlsph7 correctly noticed that. There is something interesting to be said about the question how Descartes informed contemporary epistemology, but that one thing (the indirect connection through philosophy of mind) is only a part of it and not the first thing to be said: though I still think it is very interesting and relevant, it must be given its just place.  Kornblith's view point that it did not inform naturalized epistemology is also interesting on its own. Note that he did not say that Descartes did not inform contemporary epistemology at large, because that would be a very big statement to make: there might be contemporary epistemologists that take a metaphysical view similar to Descartes' view based on apriori given to us by God (renamed as Nature). Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We can proceed with the central concepts and see what context is needed
The context that was moved at the end might not be what people in the contemporary epistemological bubble expect, but Wikipedia is not the place to reproduce bubbles that occur in academic circles. I mean, one might feel that the section on central concepts is self sufficient and does not need context, but that is because it is presented as a bubble that stands on its own. It presents a view of analytic philosophy on knowledge, in particular, the justified true belief view, as if it was the only view. This is not what Wikipedia must do. The whole point of having a context is to change that. But, we can start with the central concepts and try to present them in a way that acknowledges the specific place contemporary epistemology has within its context. Will see how it goes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that articles should not ignore alternative views. But as I see it, our main job is usually to present the dominant views as discussed in the reliable academic sources. That doesn't mean that critical voices stating alternative views are ignored or silenced. But they don't receive the same attention in terms of coverage and placement. So whatever bubble the academic discourse may be in, it's not our responsibility to burst it or to protect our readers from the dominant views in it. The discussion of justified true belief and alternative characterizations is not at the beginning but found in a later section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find annoying that you suggest that I want to protect our readers from the dominant views in the subject—I am not even sure what you mean by this and that makes it even more annoying. The natural interpretation of "protect against a content" would be not to present that content, but that leads to a ridiculous concern: my entire goal is to present the dominant and contemporary view in epistemology within its context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be the cause of annoyance. If your bubble remarks were meant in different sense then I'm happy that we are on the same page. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

image for lead
A B-class article that gets as much traffic as this one ought to have an image in the lead so that it is appealingly decorated in search results. I am adding Mind in Cave by David S. Soriano. If this is too flashy, a couple other options would be or. I don't have strong views on what the image should be, just that the article ought to have one.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The problem with your image is that it suggests that modern epistemology asks the same questions which Plato also asked, but many philosophers disagree with that. Not only the text of a Wikipedia article, but also its images cannot present a view point in Wikipedia's voice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My only request then would be to replace it with something you deem more neutral rather than simply removing it. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Although, honestly, if I wanted to, such a distinctly modernist take on an ancient allegory could easily be defended as making precisely your point: the same abiding interest in knowledge takes on different forms under different historical circumstances.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article
I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has 12 unreferenced paragraphs and the following maintenance tags: 1x More citations needed, 3x clarification needed, 1x page needed, 1x citation needed, 1x dead link.

The article has an odd structure. It has a section dedicated to schools of thought but many schools of thought have their own subsections elsewhere, like internalism, virtue epistemology, and foundationalism. Knowledge is defined first in the subsection "Knowledge" and later in the section "Defining knowledge". Redundancies are also a problem in the two separate subsections dedicated to the apriori-aposteriori distinction and the discussion of skepticism first in the subsection "Skepticism" and later the section "Epistemological concepts in past philosophies". The section "Schools of thought" has too many subsections, some of which are quite short. It would probably be better to only use separate subsections for the most important traditions and merge the remaining subsections. The definition of epistemology should be discussed somewhere in the body of the article so that the lead can summarize it rather than present information not found in the body of the article.

The article has some historical information but it lacks a structured discussion of the history of epistemology regarding the main positions in ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophy. The pieces that are already there could probably be included in a more organized presentation as parts. Various important topics are also missing from the rest of the article or are only alluded to, such as applied epistemology, evidentialism, fallibilism, contrastivism, epistemology of religion, and moral epistemology. It also wouldn't hurt to mention the problem of knowledge of other minds and the problem of induction somewhere. The article is already quite long so some of the current contents would need to be summarize to keep the length managable. There is a lengthy paragraph on words for knowledge in other languages that could probably be removed and getting rid of some redundancies would also help reduce length.

Various smaller adjustments are needed but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * The article should explain the context of its subject, modern epistemology, in a more fundamental manner, not only as an afterthought, in particular, not only in a history section at the end.  As a starting point and always in the background thereafter, the article should have a critical explanation or analysis of the approach taken by modern epistemology so that the readers can appreciate the subject from a neutral point of view. Modern epistemology is the epistemology that started more or less with the Gettier problem, at the least as a social phenomena. This subject exists in a larger background.  For example, this modern epistemology is not seen in the direction that "epistemology" took in the French culture. The complain is not that there is not enough space attributed to French Epistemology or to Epistemology as seen in Popper's work and some of his students that criticized him, etc. On the contrary, that would have the opposite effect of claiming indirectly in an uncritical manner that modern epistemology somehow covers all these subjects and that they only deserve some sections in the article, as if they are not more interesting than that within this big subject.  This is a pretentious position that is acceptable when coming from many modern epistemologists, but is not acceptable within Wikipedia. What is needed is a more focused article, but an article that at the same time explains more its own context. The other approaches, French epistemology, Popper's epistemology without a knowing subject, etc. should only be mentioned to help that and only if it helps, not as a way to pretend that the article covers a big subject that includes them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this point. I'm aware that this was the topic of some of our previous discussions and I intend to keep it in mind as I tackle the other sections. I plan to add more explicit information on the historical context when I get to the subsection "Historical epistemology" and I hope to include a short mention of this in the lead after the other points have been addressed. Ideally, the article's main subject should not be limited to new topics that have come into focus since Gettier's counterexamples but encompass epistemology in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedian might have a sincere vision of a general article, but actually he has a good vision that is focused on a nice topic that is well sourced and unified in the literature, including debates within that topic: unified does not mean a single point of view without debates. In that case, he may actually write an article that is well sourced and would be a nice article except for the fact that it is presented as a "general article" and fail to describe its own context properly and thus conflict with other views and violate NPOV while not going as deep as it should on its actual topic.
 * The notion of "in general" is fundamentally problematic when the overall literature on the given "topic" is fundamentally divided in different approaches or cultures. Otherwise, we simply pick a few reliable sources that represent the overall topic, understand them and write a nice GA article. But, this unity does not exists for most kind of knowledge. I don't see it for Epistemology.  Scientific knowledge seems to be an exception, but not philosophical knowledge. It's very tempting to try to write a "general article" and to even see it as the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, but there is no  basis to do it correctly. It will rely heavily on our ability to step back and gain a vision that, by definition, no universally reliable and notorious source ever had before. For this reason, it is very hard to write a general article without violating NOR or NPOV. For example, the criteria used to determine relevancy is likely to reflect the point of view of one part of this non unified literature and there will be a violation of NPOV. Worst, the criteria will be our own invention and it will be hard to justify it without violating NOR. Even if we succeed, the article will itself be divided with parts not well linked as it is the case in the sources that represent the overall literature. In other words, not much will be gained in terms of organization and it will not correspond to any ultimate goal.
 * Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Etymology used to present a point of view
This illustrates the general issue discussed in the previous section. Indirectly, through an etymological statement, the article presents a specific view on today's epistemology and on ancient Greek knowledge as being a universal view. The French version fr:Épistémologie uses a similar approach, but with their own adapted etymological view in which "episteme" refers to science: which translates as  The etymological statement in the article, as does the above statement in the French version, misrepresents ancient Greek knowledge to give a false impression that the article is universal and cover a general topic. To my knowledge, there is no universal view on the ancient Greek meaning of "episteme", but the most accepted view among scholars is that it is a knowledge accompanied with a techne, a skill. It is not useful to enter into the details. The point is that the etymological statement in the article (and also in the French version, but to support their own different approach) serves only the purpose of claiming that the article is a general article, but in doing so it relies on a simplistic view of the knowledge in ancient Greek. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Epistemology