Talk:Epistemology

Epistemology along ethics, logic and metaphysics: verifiable, but still one view

It could be interesting to develop on the view that epistemology was added along ethics, logic and metaphysics. One reason is that this statement by itself is not so enlightening. In particular, the term metaphysics itself would need to be explained and the article does not do that at all, even though the term is mentioned twice thereafter. But this is not the main reason. The main reason is that any division of philosophy is the expression of a philosophical point of view and it is important not to express a point of view as if it was always true, like an absolute truth. Certainly, epistemology was not always a fourth division of philosophy. It is a relatively recent invention and this invention must be properly explained, put in context. The fact that it is verifiable has nothing to do with the neutral point of view (NPOV).

This is a sense of NPOV that is not appreciated by those people that identify NPOV with a respect of proportion in sources. NPOV is more than that. Some think that any verifiable and pertinent statement can be included, as long as the proportion in sources is respected, but NPOV is an extra requirement that says we must know from where it comes from: Wikipedia must not engage in a point of view, but (factually) describe it. Some people argue that there is no need for that when the proportion in sources is large. This is a misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV requires that no point of view is expressed as a truth. What is confusing is that, in most cases, when the proportion is large, say in the case of scientific knowledge, then the context is clear and therefore NPOV is also respected without having to worry about it. It is not the case here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I slightly modified the sentence, which, I hope, addresses your concern.

You write Wikipedia must not engage in a point of view, but (factually) describe it. Some people argue that there is no need for that when the proportion in sources is large. NPOV requires that no point of view is expressed as a truth. This is false. NPOV is limited to "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". For how to deal with minority and fringe theories, see WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE. For acceptable uses of wikivoice see WP:WIKIVOICE. If you claim that a passage violates NPOV, it's up to you to provide reliable sources to show that a source contradicts what our article says and that this is a significant view. You usually respond with a wall of text that fails to do either. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Proportion does not explain the need for attribution of opinions, which I called POVs. The way we organize philosophy in main branches depends on opinions. I don't care about attribution to a single author, as long as we have some context saying from where it comes from, I think it's fine. It should be obvious that this statement is propaganda for the field. It makes it more important by saying it is a "main branch". I am only saying fine, let's explain it more, what is metaphysics in that claim, etc. The main question is why it bothers you to provide more information so that the content is more informative, descriptive and neutral, not just the affirmation of something without any explanation ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the word "main", we can use "central", "core", or "major". Whether or why something bothers me personally is not the main question. This question about my psychological state is irrelevant to this maintenance tag, just like your personal opinions. Do you have a source to backup your claim that the sentence violates NPOV because it does not explain the word "metaphysics" or is this just a personal opinion? Without a source, it might be best to remove the tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is not entirely determined by the sources and it is important that it isn't. Many editorial decisions must be taken by wikipedians, by all the wikipedians that wish a great article and work toward that goal. This means that we must be ready to discuss and take into considerations the editorial opinions of the other wikipedians that remains within the range of these valid editorial decisions. Just to be clear, it means that you do not have and I do not have to give a rule for every choice we make. It also means that we can both claim that a rule is violated when a choice is not within that range. I claim NPOV, not verifiability, is violated. In addition, the editorial choice to explain better the statement is important irrespective of NPOV. I understand that NPOV is a very complex rule to apply. So let us discuss this calmly with an appreciation of each other. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While I disagree with your concern, I see 2 ways how it could be addressed: add a footnote to explain the term "metaphysics" or not mention the other disciplines. Would that solve what you see as a problem?

Whether an assertion is NPOV depends on significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of editors: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors ... is irrelevant and should not be considered." Are you sure that your current behavior is not another example of the misuse of maintenance tags criticized above? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not ask you if you are sure that you are not giving your personal opinion about the rule that you cite here. This would be a rhetorical question. Obviously, you do not think that you misinterpret the rule. It is the same for me. I do not see anything in the small extracts from the text of NPOV that you quote that contradict my understanding of NPOV. Of course, when we apply due weight or balance, it is the sources that matter, not the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors. Again, unless we have a very broad understanding of tone that includes attribution and ways to achieve the same, NPOV is not just due weight, balance and tone. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please expand on the solutions that you propose and stick to one point at a time. If you discuss my interpretation of the rule, stick to that point. If you propose solutions, stick to that. Ideally, present one solution at a time, the one that you consider the best. This would allow the discussion to be more focused. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: replace "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics." with "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics."
• Option 2: replace "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics." with "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy."

Sources

• Hamlyn, D. W. (2005). "Metaphysics, History of". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
• Koons, Robert C.; Pickavance, Timothy H. (2015). Metaphysics: The Fundamentals (1. ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9574-4.
• Brenner, William H. (1993). Logic and Philosophy: An Integrated Introduction. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-0-268-15898-9. Archived from the original on 30 June 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
• Palmquist, Stephen (2010). Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-022623-2. Archived from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
• Jenicek, Milos (2018). How to Think in Medicine: Reasoning, Decision Making, and Communication in Health Sciences and Professions. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-351-68402-6. Archived from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.

Notes

References

Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see any problem with the current language. If it is to be changed to one of these options, however, I prefer the second.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The details of the language are not the issue. The second option has an effect way beyond the language, because it takes metaphysics out of consideration. It has the value of allowing to focus on the key issue, which is the unexplained statement that epistemology (as covered in this article) is a major branch of philosophy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The general issue

This is an issue that goes beyond the english culture, because articles in english Wikipedia must take an international perspective. I was just reading a book on philosophy of knowledge presented to me by wikipedians on the french Wikipedia. The notion of justified belief is only mentioned at some occasions in the entire book and even then it was not to present the analysis discussed in this article. Epistemology as discussed in this article is not a major branch of philosophy in other cultures. In fact, the French language does not even have a word for epistemology has presented in this article. The French "Épistémologie" is philosophy of sciences. The French "Théorie de la Connaissance" mostly ignores English contemporary epistemology that unfolded after the problems of Gettier about 60 years ago. It only briefly acknowledges and discusses the existence of an English epistemology, which mainly studies ordinary knowledge. It does not matter that many English sources claim so or that the field exists for 60 years, it does not make it a universal fact. Even if one has a book written in French (not a translation) that presents the English's view, it will not remove the fact that many French books (and perhaps German books, Italian books, etc.) do not have this view. I strongly believe that it is a major branch of philosophy in the English culture. It is even an obvious fact. But, this fact needs to be explained. This does not mean to add "in the English world" or anything like that. It means to be really informative, perhaps add a few sentences that explains who first presented it as a branch, connect this to the main concepts of the article, etc. Part of this could be done even earlier. Phlsph7 rejects my proposals as relativizations or contextualizations of an important field that exists for 60 years. He feels that it should not be needed. It is needed, because it will be very informative for the readers. If you step back a bit, it should be obvious that it is better, more neutral, to provide a context that explains how it happened, etc. than only doing propaganda by saying "its a major branch ...." It is propaganda, even if it comes from a well establish field in the English culture. Moreover, 60 years is not that much in a philosophical scale. Even only because of that, i.e., even putting asides the other cultures, some explanation from where it comes from will be useful. Please, please do not feel that I want to diminish the importance of the field. This is not the issue. In Wikipedia, we should not think that way. The idea is only to provide more information so that we are informative, not just making a claim "it's a major branch" out of the blue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support moving note 13, or some version thereof, up into the bottom of the final paragraph of Definition in order to strengthen the historical contextualization near the top of the article.

I would also support making an effort to avoid describing people as doing epistemology before it was defined as its own branch of philosophy. The reason for this is that some people, including myself, consider the self-understanding of the agent to be a constituent part of the activity.

In English, however, it is entirely common to apply the term anachronistically. In my anecdotal experience, this drives people educated in Germany completely bonkers, and it sounds as if it might be the same for France. But this is rather pedantic, and most of the time, as far as I am concerned, the practice is unproblematic. So I think it would be unreasonable to insist upon this across the board.

If you can provide a paragraph or two explaining the emergence of epistemology as an independent branch of philosophy situated primarily in the world of Anglophone academia, that would be a most welcome addition. I would learn something myself. But you cannot demand that another editor research and write your ideal version of this article, which is what a lot of this looks like. Patrick (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add an historical context, but it was rejected. Of course, it was not perfect, but there was no attempt to improve it. It was the very idea of an historical context that was rejected. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to the diff? I don't think I saw it. Patrick (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There was many diffs and looking at them individually will be confusing, but here is the diff that said historical contextualization at the start was not a good idea. I should say that I considered this a good thing, because a lot of the historical material in the moved sections were propaganda for the field, such as a big anachronism that claimed in Wikipedia's voice that the key question of epistemology essentially existed in Plato's philosophy. So, it was a big improvement to move that stuff at the end, but it was throwing the baby out with the bath water. The point is that, even if it was a good thing, there has never been an understanding that some contextualization is needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless the same point is made with different language somewhere in the current article, I would support restoring this paragraph:

There are a number of different methods that contemporary scholars use when trying to understand the relationship between past epistemology and contemporary epistemology. One of the most contentious questions is this: "Should we assume that the problems of epistemology are perennial, and that trying to reconstruct and evaluate Plato's or Hume's or Kant's arguments is meaningful for current debates, too?" Similarly, there is also a question of whether contemporary philosophers should aim to rationally reconstruct and evaluate historical views in epistemology, or to merely describe them.

I agree with Phlsph7, however, that the material in the section titled "Historical and conceptual context" is most likely to overwhelm and confuse readers. Patrick (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also agreed to move the section for a similar reason, as I said. I also think that providing a context should not require much. Yet, I never felt that there was an intention to even discuss that. I will comment on your proposal later. I have no time now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph, I suppose sources could be found to verify that these questions are being asked by scholars. My main issue is that I do not understand what this paragraph would achieve in the article. I cannot see that it answers the concern that I raised (see below). It is fine, if it fulfils another purpose, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps, you only extracted the best you could find in the moved section. If that is the case, there has been a misunderstanding. I admit that this section was not a success and I feel it is better to start at fresh. Perhaps at the time, it would have been useful if someone had tried to understand what I was trying to achieve, but now it is the past. It's better to consider the concern that I express below (and above in the collapsed box). I will certainly propose a solution, as you suggest, but the key thing is that a neutral point of view is very difficult to achieve. It requires to describe instead of engage debates, etc. Therefore, we should work together, try to understand what the other is trying to achieve, even if the current proposal has problems. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

A branch named Epistemology was indeed created in the early 20th century (starting a bit at the end of 19th century). Before that, in the neo-kantian period, it was perhaps said that Erkenntnistheorie was a branch of philosophy. Yet, these are totally different branches, with totally different premises and thus different fundamental questions, even if superficially they might look the same. At the time of its creation, epistemology mainly focused on scientific knowledge. This original branch gave rise to French Épistémologie, which also focused on scientific knowledge. Today, we have a different kind of epistemology in English that studies ordinary knowledge claims and says nothing that specifically applies to science. French philosophers would certainly agree that their branch, the one that respected the original English branch, is a major branch of philosophy and they would disagree that English epistemology, as it is today, is the same as their Épistémologie. They even have a branch called Théorie de la connaissance that is more general and "covers" (but only briefly, just to say that it covers it) English epistemology. The readers need to be informed. to learn something meaningful. Which one is the extra major branch? What is this major branch anyway ? We do not repeat to the readers what English sources say as if it was a universal truth, just because it makes the field look nice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Patrick, I also fail to see a problem with the maintenance-tagged sentence and prefer to keep the sentence as it is. The alternative versions were only meant as compromise offers.

I followed your suggestion and moved footnote 13 up to the end of the definition section. This footnote, together with the text on historical epistemology in the section "Branches", aims to cover the earlier paragraph you quoted. I added one sentence to focus on the question cited in this paragraph. This passage could be further expanded but we have to be careful to not give too much weight to this area.

Dominic, if you can provide me with reliable sources that explicitly express your concerns then I can try to work them into the article (they have to directly support the idea; counting how often a term occurs in them usually does not fulfill the requirements of direct support). I don't want to change the article only because it collides with your personal views, like your opinion that "Today, we have a different kind of epistemology in English that studies ordinary knowledge claims and says nothing that specifically applies to science". This opinion is false: the active field of the epistemology of science is specifically dedicated to this topic, as discussed in the first paragraph of the section "Branches". For English language overview sources of epistemology in general that include detailed discussions of science, see Audi 1998, Bernecker & Pritchard 2011, Moser 2005, Niiniluoto, Sintonen & Wolenski 2004, and Rescher 2003. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how you back your rejection of my points using the sources that you mention. It could be that I missed something, even though I read a lot of sources. It could be that often (recent) English sources on (contemporary) epistemology claim to cover issues specific to science. That would be a weird claim, unless they refer to different fields with the name "epistemology" in it. Of course, "social epistemology" and "feminist epistemology" and perhaps other fields similar to them consider issues specific to science. I have not read sources on these other fields, but I have read sources that say these other fields, unlike contemporary English epistemology, cover issues specific to science, more precisely, they say that they are in a junction point between (contemporary English) epistemology and philosophy of sciences. I will be very happy to read more sources to try to understand how you came to your conclusion. I suspect the explanation for the disagreement between us is that some English sources on epistemology view the organization of their field in their own special way, which is different from how French sources see English epistemology. Honestly, I haven't see that opposition in sources, but if there is such different views, it is excellent. It is something to be presented in the article and an occasion to explain how the core of the article fits into that: the purpose is to provide a context for the core content of the article, not for all sources with "epistemology" in the title, i.e., the goal is that the readers can know quickly the orientation of the article and understand why it says so little specific to science, except very superficially in sections toward the end. I had already read Audi 2003 and we discussed it together above, but you mention different sources. I might ask you specific pages, but for now, I will simply look quickly over the sources that you mention and try to understand what you have in mind. I retract it because my comments here are perceived as a disturbance. I thought it would be appreciated as a way to improve the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Epistemology is relevant to many descriptive and normative disciplines

I am now considering the statement "Epistemology is relevant to many descriptive and normative disciplines", which seems propaganda for the field. I do not doubt that the field is fascinating and should be created and all questions that it asks should be asked if it did not yet exists, but the application of the field in other areas must be well acknowledged in a neutral objective manner by many independent sources before it can be expressed in Wikipedia's voice. The first reference provided is toward two pages of the book Audi 2003, a 350 pages book. These two pages basically repeat what we already knew about science before the birth of contemporary epistemology. That does not support strongly the claim, even if attributed to Audi. I have not yet read the two other references provided. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Audi 2003, pp. 258–259 talks about the wide fields of "Scientific, moral, and religious knowledge" while also mentioning "other domains, such as that of art or history or literature." Wolenski 2004, pp. 3–4 has a detailed list, including "psychology, sociology, logic, history, physiology, pathology, axiology, metaphysics, and several other things." Campbell 2024 also provides a long list of fields where it is relevant, right in the lead section.

If you are convinced that this support is not strong enough and presents a one-sided view, I suggest that you provide reliable sources that explicitly deny these statements. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The non existence of sources that explicitly deny the claim is irrelevant. We need sources for the claim and if such propaganda is stated in Wikipedia's voice, more than just a few sources must make the claim. It has to be pervasive in many different sources. Audi 2003, pp. 258–259 does not cover the moral and religious subsections, only the scientific subsection. The first page also has a brief two paragraphs introduction for the three subsections that essentially says: "The task is immense; here I will simply try to show how the framework laid out so far can clarify knowledge and justification in relation to some important aspects of science, ethics, and religion." This is far from sufficient to justify a statement in Wikipedia's voice. Again, the remaining two pages only cover science. Again, it only repeats what was known about science before the birth of contemporary epistemology. Of course, this kind of discussions goes nowhere. I should not have to repeat myself this way. Then people say oh it is a long discussion, etc. I agree. It is long, yet almost empty and it goes nowhere. I retract it because my comments here are perceived as a disturbance. I thought it would be appreciated as a way to improve the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfocused

The article has actually a focus on contemporary epistemology, which is great. But, it fails to state that focus clearly and this explains the maintenance tag. I proposed this

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the origin, nature, and scope of knowledge. The article focuses on contemporary epistemology which, since the mid 20th century, has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge and largely concerned itself with epistemic justification, the rationality of belief and related issues about ordinary knowledge claims. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas.

The main criticism is that the part "has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge" does not reflect the body of the article. The reality is that scientific knowledge is only mentioned three times in the core of the article:

• very briefly to illustrate concepts such as a priori and a posteriori knowledge,
• as belonging to a different field (philosophy of science),
• as an example of fallible knowledge (which is opposed to the central requirement of truth).

I ignored the fifteen times it is mentioned at the end of the article, often in "branches" that are ignored in the core of the article, in related fields, etc. It is fine that the article does that, because it focuses on contemporary epistemology, which itself focuses very little on science. For example, as does this article, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Epistemology, only mentions science or scientific three times:

• when describing Russell’s epistemology (at the time, science was still the main example of knowledge),
• briefly as an example to illustrate epistemic harms and epistemic wrongs,
• in a word analysis: “knowledge” can be translated into Latin as either “cognitio” or as “scientia”.

So, on the contrary, the description I proposed is very accurate and representative of the body of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The article shouldn't contain editorializing (The article focuses on...) either in the article text itself or in a maintenance tag. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie:, where this interdiction to refer to the article itself is stated. Long time ago, I don't remember where and when exactly, I asked the question and there was a consensus that it is fine and they even provided a few examples where it is done. Things might have changed, but if it is not a rule, only a recommendation, then we should ignore it in our case, because there is big need for it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the thread where I asked the question and the guideline MOS:SELFREF was given to me as an answer. It says in its nutshell that it is fine. To be fair, though the guidelines clearly say it is fine to do that, in my search, I noticed that some wikipedians don't like it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a 'big need' to state your opinion of the article in its text or in a maintenance tag. This is plainly a misuse of a maintenance tag, and the text itself is plainly WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I stated facts about the article. You have given no reason why it is a misuse. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You added unsourced, self-referential statements which have more to do with your opinion of the article than anything else. A maintenance tag is not a special box to enshrine such opinions at the top of the article. Doing so is a misuse of a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: it is a fact that the article focuses on contemporary epistemology. Currently, the lead says it implicitly but I have shown by pointing to guidelines that it can say it explicitly in a self-referential manner and that is no problem. It is important to clarify this, so that we can see that we progress. The "unsourced" part is a totally different concern now raised. Indeed, the statement "since the mid 20th century,[epistemology] has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge" should be verifiable. Are you simply asking for a source that verifies it. Is some other fundamental issue bothering you ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The fundamental issue that is bothering me is the one I have mentioned several times now: your attempt to insert editorializing into the article, either in the text or in a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So, we have not progressed. I thought the guideline MOS:SELFREF took care of that issue. The discussion seems to have stalled. Of course, if you only mean to say that, personally, you dislike the approach that I propose, which you describe as "editorializing", then your position is reasonably clear. If there is any chance that you can change your view, let me know. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As I have said several times before, the article is about epistemology in general, not just contemporary epistemology. The claim that it is or should be about contemporary epistemology is Dominic Mayers's personal view. Please stop misrepresenting your personal view as being an accepted fact. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been warned about how you use maintenance tags in the discussion yesterday as well and I agree that the unfocused tag you added today is also a clear case of misuse. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The SEP article you cite is about epistemology, not contemporary epistemology. The SEP article does not mention the term "contemporary epistemology". Making conclusions about a bias of contemporary epistemology based on counting how often a term appears in an article on epistemology is bad research that does not fulfill any Wikipedia verification requirements. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I never meant to say the subject is "Contemporary epistemology". Had I meant this, I would have requested that we move the article under "Contemporary epistemology" and I never requested this. So, please stop bringing confusion. I just want to bring out that epistemology after the mid 20th century has taken a very particular direction that is a defining fact of the subject: it gives little consideration to issues that are specific to science and that the article naturally adopts this approach, which defines the field. I have no problem to admit that the formulation that I used could be improved. Perhaps there is no need to refer to "contemporary epistemology" to bring out that defining fact of epistemology, as it is today, and that the article follows that. By the way, for the French philosophers who study "épistemologie", the defining characteristic of English (contemporary) epistemology (they also do not use the redundant "contemporary") is the fact that it focuses on knowledge in general and very little, if at all, on issues specific to science. It's the first thing they say about English epistemology. I retract it, because it is perceived as a disturbance. I apologize for that. I thought it would be appreciated as a way to improve the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Internalism/externalism

As an aside to all the discussions above, I don't think this article should describe the internalism/ externalism as a metaepistemological debate. There are plenty of sources that you could use to support it, but others take the complete opposite view. According to Kuenzle internalism/externalism about epistemic justification are explicitly epistemological positions for some defendants of the distinction between epistemology and meta-epistemology (Moser, Weinberg), while meta-epistemological for others (Fumerton). The SEP page on metaepistemology gives the debate as an example of paradigmatic first-order debates in epistemology. I don't think we need to take a side or even bring it up in this article. Shapeyness (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting these sources, I was not aware of them. I was following Crumley II 2009 (The internalism/externalism debate is a metatheoretical or metaepistemological debate ... it is a metaepistemological debate about the nature of epistemological theories) and Poston (Most everyone sees the I-E debate as metaepistemological). I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Many sources that mention "metaepistemology" while presenting the debate, as an objection or as a support for anything, would rather be a justification to discuss it, not to ignore it. I am OK that we ignore it, but the real motivation is the opposite: the proportion of sources that discuss the debate without even mentioning metaepistemology is very high and that cannot be judged by looking at a few sources only. It requires a general familiarity with the sources. I actually provided an excellent source, because Fumerton is perhaps the most cited expert when it is question of metaepistemology and the internalism/externalism debate. He sees the debate as a part of metaepistemology and yet he introduced it with The internalism/externalism debate occupies center stage in contemporary epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Introductory comparison between empiricists and rationalists

A sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction: "Empiricists regard sense experience as the primary source of knowledge, whereas rationalists view reason as an additional source." Taking that at face value, one could assume there's no reason for empiricists and rationalists to disagree. I think it should be rewritten more sharply:

“Empiricists regard sensory experience as the primary source of knowledge, whereas rationalists view reason and innate ideas as primary, with empirical experience playing a secondary role.”

It isn't that empiricists deny any contribution from reason after the fact of, or validated by, empirical evidence; obviously Locke or Berkely or Hume wouldn't have thought so. I wonder, however, if "playing a secondary role" is the best way to express this. Eugene Craig Campbell (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Eugene and thanks for raising this point. I'm not sure that it is true that rationalists deny that sense experience is a primary source of knowledge (except, perhaps, for the extreme rationalism mentioned in footnote [h]). Oversimplifying it, one might say that both empiricists and rationalists accept sense experience as a primary source but only rationalists accept reason as one more primary source. Empiricists agree that reason has a role to play, but not as a primary source of knowledge. There are some challenges to summarizing this debate in one sentence so we should be careful about overstating the difference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How about "Empiricists hold that all knowledge can be traced back to experience, whereas rationalists believe some knowledge can be gained independently from experience"? I think this gets at the key point more clearly. Sense experience is the original source of all knowledge for empiricists, not just a primary source among others. (Obviously, reason can expand knowledge for empiricists, but that depends on reason acting upon knowledge already gained from experience.) Shapeyness (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I used a simplified reformulation of your suggestion. Feel free to tinker with it if necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been wanting to review this for a while, but hadn't found the courage to commit to the challenge. I have read several of your articles before and found them very well written. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Phlsph7, I have started the review below. I have a major scope point I would like to sort out before moving forward. IAWW (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello It is a wonderful world, I really appreciate you taking on this challenging task! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

Will read after the article.

Definition

The term is also used in a slightly different sense to refer not to the branch of philosophy but to a particular position within that branch: On my first read through of this sentence, I thought it meant there was one specific viewpoint within epistemology called "epistemology" or similar. Changing "particular" to "philosophers" would fix this ambiguity. IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I used a slightly different formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

it determines which beliefs fulfill the standards: I don't think it determines what "beliefs" fulfill the standards, but rather whether the method of acquisition of the belief fulfills the standard.

You can probably put it either way. I added the formulation about forms of belief acquisition. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

or epistemic goals of knowledge: The sentence starts with "This way", which refers to the idea of evaluating methods of belief acquisition. But "epistemic goals of knowledge" is a different subject that can be used to evaluate beliefs on? If this is the case, then it seems to conflict with the phrasing of "This way"? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed the expression "This way". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest linking "literally" to "literal translation". IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

earlier philosophers did not explicitly label their theories as epistemology: Would "epistemological" be more accurate here? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think either one works. I kept the current formulation because it wouldn't be clear otherwise what the following "it" refers to. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

I am a bit concerned that this article goes into too much detail on the central concepts. This article is about epistemology, not the concepts it studies. Any explanation of the concepts relevant to the field should therefore be directly relevant to how epistemology interacts with other concepts, or be essential to understanding the definition.

Unfortunately I cannot find any featured articles on a scientific or philosophical discipline to compare with.

I think the counterargument for inclusion would go something along the lines of "explaining the concepts increases the understanding of epistemology", but beyond being able to understand the definition, I don't think it does?

I think this is the most un-intuitive point I have ever made on a review, so I could well be wrong. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right that the article did not properly clarify the purpose of this section so I added a short introductory paragraph and changed some formulations. The section is not primarily a preparatory exercise to help readers understand what comes afterward. Instead, the study of these concepts is part of epistemology itself. For example, the analysis, value, and sources of knowledge take center stage in many discussions both as epistemological topics in their own right and for the effects they have on other topics.

There are different ways to split these topics into sections and one could do so without a section called "Central concepts". However, I think it's a good approach in our case, which is also found in high-quality sources. For example, Part 1 of the Routledge Companion to Epistemology is called "Foundational Concepts" with one chapter dedicated to each major concept. The articles "Epistemology" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also have separate sections or subsections dedicated to these topics. Of course, that doesn't mean that everything that is currently in our section absolutely needs to be there. Please let me know if specific details get too much weight, then I'll try to summarize them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, for similar articles with sections on basic concepts, see Ontology and Logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Media clock

Captions (Criterion 6b) clock

I think most of these should be cited, even if they are supported by the text. For the ease of anyone looking to verify. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the corresponding references. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

File:David Hume 2.jpg says it has been "superseded" and should be replaced with File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg. This isn't something I have seen before but I assume it is better to replace it. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the quality of the 2nd image is better so I used it instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)