Talk:Deliberative indispensability argument

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deliberative indispensability argument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 17:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness, nice to see that your series on indispensability arguments continues! I'll start with some prose comments.

Thanks for reviewing Phlsph7 I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to finish the series off with an article on indispensability arguments in general although that will probably not be soon, it was nice to quickly revisit the topic for this article though! I have added responses below. Shapeyness (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is because deliberation seems to be the search for objectively right answers about what is the correct decision to make in a given situation something about this phrase seems awkward to me. Maybe remove "what is" and replace "the search" with "a search"

 Done

• This is the view that normative and moral truths exist and they are objective and irreducibly normative. consider removing "they"

 Done

• Enoch argues that explanation and deliberation are both rationally non-optional so can both support indispensability arguments. to my ears, "..., so both can support..." sounds more natural

 Done

• deliberating is required to rationally act in the world. maybe better: "... to act rationally ..."

 Done

• In general, indispensability arguments work by defending their conclusion on the basis that it is indispensable for some purpose or project. maybe more accessible In general, indispensability arguments assert that something exists because it is indispensable for some purpose or project.

I made a similar change, hopefully it is accessible enough (I'm probably getting into the weeds a bit but wanted to retain the emphasis of the argument as an epistemic argument rather than metaphysical, i.e. about what beliefs are justified rather than directly an argument about what exists). Shapeyness (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• He argued that this is because explanation is intrinsically indispensable in the sense that it is rationally non-optional to engage in the project of explanation to understand and act in the world. By contrast, attempts at sorcery are an optional project. Maybe more accessible He argued that explanation has a special status because it is a rationally non-optional project required to understand and act in the world. If you want to cover intrinsic indispensability, you could add ", making explanation intrinsically indispensable". Or you could modify the next paragraph to introduce the term there.

 Done I also used this as an opportunity to simplify the following paragraph and add an example, let me know what you think. Shapeyness (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead section has a few unexplained technical terms, such as "indispensability", "normative realism", and "mathematical realism". It is a challenging topic to explain to a general reader, but maybe we can simplify it somewhat. Have a look if you want to replace some of the current text of the first lead paragraph, starting from the 2nd sentence, with the following: The argument states that there are normative truths or objective facts about what people should do or believe. Enoch was inspired by similar arguments in the philosophy of mathematics, which hold that mathematical objects, such as numbers, have objective existence because they are required for scientific explanation. Enoch applied a related idea to normative truths, arguing that they have objective existence because they are required for deliberation, making them indispensable.

I will try to revisit this later today, I was considering adding more explanation of normative truths in the body as well so will include that in these changes as well! Shapeyness (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Phlsph7, the lead is definitely more accessible now. I have kept reference to indispensability largely unchanged because I think it keeps things a bit cleaner/more direct. I agree that it is a technical term, but its everyday meaning is not at all misleading. And I don't think it is too obscure a word to keep in unexplained - we can always add a wiktionary link if in doubt. Shapeyness (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, the changes help make the lead more accessible. A few more lead-related nitpicks:

• The argument claims that deliberation is rationally non-optional because deliberating is rationally required to act in the world. You might consider removing the second "rationally" to make it sound less repetitive.
• You might replace the two instances of "irreducibly normative truths" with "normative truths": it's less informative, but it reduces the risk of readers struggling with the term "irreducibly".

For the spotcheck

• The deliberative indispensability argument is an argument for robust realism about normative and moral truths.[1] supported by Lenman 2013, pp. 835–836.
• David Enoch formulated the deliberative indispensability argument in part to respond to this point by Harman.[4] supported by Lutz 2022, p. 119.
• With this distinction in place, Enoch states the deliberative indispensability argument in Taking Morality Seriously as follows:[9] supported by Enoch 2011, p. 83.
• An alternative view claims that deliberation is a search for correct answers based on subjective desires rather than objective truth. However, according to Enoch and others such as Thomas Nagel, it is often rational to question our desires so they alone cannot provide definitive answers to deliberation.[13] supported by Vesper 2025, p. 32.
• However, according to Alex Worsnip, Enoch did not provide an analogous belief-forming method based on deliberation, and therefore is missing a key element of an indispensability argument.[18] supported by Lutz 2022, p. 121. However, is "belief-forming method based on deliberation" correct? This sounds a little like deliberation is itself a belief-forming method or its source. Reading Lutz 2022, I get the impression that the belief-forming method is used for the project (i.e., deliberation). Maybe "...belief-forming method used for deliberation..." or something similar? This could also be an issue for the starting sentence of the paragraph ("...deliberation can provide a belief-forming method..."). I haven't checked the other sources, so feel free to push back in case they undermine my interpretation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right, good spot. I have changed the wording slightly and both of the comments above should be addressed now too. Shapeyness (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that takes care of the main concerns. Regarding the remaining GA criteria: the prose is fine and complies with the main MOS guidelines. Everything in the body of the article is supported by reliable sources and the spotcheck did not reveal any original research. WP:EARWIG shows no copyvios, except for short stock phrases. The article covers the main aspects of the topic, and is focused, neutral, and stable. It does not have any images. Images would be nice, but their lack is not surprising given that the topic is quite abstract. That covers all the GA criteria. Congratulations! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.