Talk:Apophenia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apophenia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Etymology[edit]

Cuzkatzimhut; A number of Wikipedia articles have content related to etymology. With regard to this revert, wouldn't this content then be a valid addition to this article? DTM (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited book is indulging in crackpot etymology without fingerprints. It fails to cite by whom the canard has been suggested: " ... ἀπό (away from, apart) and φαίνειν (to show, to make appear). It has been suggested, however, that apophenia results from a misspelling and that the proper term should be apophrenia, from the Greek words ἀπό (away from) and φρήν (nerve, mind). Historically, the terms apophenia and apophany derive from the German neologism Apophänie, which was introduced in or shortly before 1958 by the German neurologist and psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905–1961) to denote an “unmotivated seeing of connections” accompanied by a “specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness”. This is likely somebody from the gallery who never mastered greek and stretches something he does not recognize to a completely different bogus word, also a neologism. At best, he is berating Conrad, the coiner, for not knowing enough Greek, which is unwarranted. I see no need to keep linguistic canards alive, and spread bogus misspelling stories through Wikipedia. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, OK, what I'd like to know is this: I wonder if Conrad worked from the example of other German scientific terms ending in -phänie (never mind the Greek) and if so, which would these have been? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:986A:E4DD:2319:C79A (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to hypnagogia and/or hypnopompia?[edit]

Has this ever been researched? What is known? I can only say why I think this could be a relevant topic. I think it is clear that pattern matching is constantly going on in our brains, and I would surmise that there are mechanisms that control (1) how intensive this activity is and (2) how much of it is allowed to filter through to consciousness. From personal experience (which is not worth much, but remember, I am only asking a question on Talk here) it would appear that the effectiveness of these mechanisms is drifting in transitional states. Also, hypnagogic apophenia seems to be distracting and somewhat scary, whereas hypnopompic apophenia can be very fruitful (if you happen to be a mathematician at least). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:986A:E4DD:2319:C79A (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

I'm not an editor, and I know this is probably not a super frequented page, but just wanted to let someone know that the band They Might Be Giants has a song called Apophenia that could be added to the Art portion. Thanks! 2600:1006:B16A:A732:B5F0:537:202A:EF3B (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast with epiphany[edit]

The article says apophenia "does not provide insight into the nature of reality nor its interconnectedness" in the way that epiphany does; this makes sense to me.

To what extent, if any, does apophenia provide false epiphany? I mean, do people experiencing apophenia necessarily believe (or sometimes believe) that their experience does "provide insight into the nature of reality or its interconnectedness"? TooManyFingers (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. See WP:NOTAFORUM. If you find an article or book that discusses this topic, please share it with us and we can add it to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. My hope was that a person actually knowledgeable about that particular aspect would have something relevant to contribute to the article, rather than mere sniping at honest questions. If I had known where to look, I would have had no reason to ask a question in the first place. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I upset you. The examples in the article, especially the reference to gambler's fallacy and perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena, suggest people can go quite far with their beliefs. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]