Changes

In this section, you can describe some of the shortcomings of your philosopher’s views on scientific change based on criticisms that were brought against them by other thinkers. From here you can describe how your thinker’s ideas either a) succumbed to those criticisms, and the prevailing views in the philosophy of science accordingly shifted in a new direction or b) were amended in order surmount those criticisms and grew in a modified form. You can leave readers with what is essentially a signpost, directing them toward a new article (or articles) that go into more detail about the new philosophical direction you mention (i.e. “For more information on this development, see [hyperlink to article X]”). Please practice restraint in this section. It is easy to start writing about the full-fledged contrasting views to your thinker’s ideas and before you know it you are writing a whole other article on the critics of your philosopher. The main goal of this section is to give readers an idea of any lasting impressions left by your thinker’s ideas, any obstacles that may or may not have brought their philosophy to a halt, and a sense of where to go next if they want to follow developments of this train of thought further. Like the Historical Context section, we also intend to have this section collapsed upon entry to the article and open to expansion only if the reader needs it.

{{note|1=This is an idealized template of what we think an article on a historical figure should look like. We realize that this generalized format might ignore some of the intricacies of your specific philosopher’s ideas and growth as a thinker. If you think the aforementioned structure should be modified to better suit your specific thinker, please do not hesitate to bring it up with us!|2=reminder}}