|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Epistemology article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Epistemology has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Epistemology was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of epistemology, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
The irrationality section should be deleted, it has little to do with the current epistemological literature. It is POV.
“ It is common for epistemological theories to avoid skepticism by adopting a foundationalist approach. To do this, they argue that certain types of statements have a special epistemological status — that of not needing to be justified. So it is possible to classify epistemological theories according to the type of statement that each argues has this special status.”
- I deleted this because it is an inadequate introduction to the following section which doesn’t mainly concern types of foundationalism and the beliefs they identify as primary.
“or positivism, which places higher emphasis on ideas about reality rather than on experiences of reality.”
- Deleted because Postivists who place primary emphasis on experience, that’s what verificationism is about after all.
“The central problem for epistemology then becomes explaining this correspondence.”
- Deleted, not everyone supports the correspondence view of truth. The central problem of epistemology is standardly viewed as the problem of the meaning and possibility of knowledge.
- Deleted because coherentists usually support the “Scientific method”. The debate between foundationalism and coherentism little concerns the validity of the scientific method.
“Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute "real" knowledge (as David Hume argued).”
- Deleted because it’s inaccurate. Historically it’s safe to say that most empricists have believed that logical and mathematical knowledge ( especially logical knowledge) are knowable a-priori.
“Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are held to be true without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements.”
-The section on idealism is inaccurate. This was particularly inaccurate. It was deleted because beliefs about the status of mathematical and logical knowledge vary from idealist to idealist, the views described above ( which are, by the way, poorly phrased) are not held by all idealists.
“The opposite theory to this is solipsism.”
- Deleted because it is (a) confusing and unnecessary (b) not necessarily accurate ( c) simplistic. The whole section on naive realism looks suspicious to me.
- The section on Pragmatism should be deleted or expanded because there are “as many pragmatisms as there are pragmatists”. Between the Neo-Pragmatism of Rorty and the Pragmatism of Quine there is little common ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-25 10:50:55 (UTC)
- The section on the "Galaxy Theory" should be deleted. It is a fringe view of one author. But it occupies a huge space in the main article on epistemology. There are dozens of epistemologists whose work is far more influential.
Semantic Attack Some (e.g. Hirsch) claim that Gettier was sloppy in his definition of justification. Gettier siletly assumes, that belief can be justified by belief. He accepts Smith's proposation "the one who gets the job will have ten cents in his pocket" as justified just because it turns out to be true, which is of course tautological. Then he debunks that contrived wrong case. The belief about the ten cents was in truth not justified, because it was based on [i]yet another[/i] belief - that Jones would get the job. That belief turned out to be wrong, therefore the belief aubout the ten cents was [i]not[/i] justified.
Smith's proposItion, not proposAtion
italic command failed
Internalism/Externalism on Descartes
Considering that a link already exists to the Internalism/Externalism page, and that Descartes is only peripherally relevant to the Internalism/Externalism debate, I would recommend either cutting the paragraph, or reducing it to a very few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedenko (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 September 2009
Theories of Knowledge
Propose to add the following content . . .
Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guide empirical research.
Scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions.
Idealism asserts the aim of education is to discover and develop each individual's abilities and full moral excellence in order to better serve society. Character is developed through imitating examples and heroes.
The Galaxy-like section
I am not a subject matter expert, so I'll leave it to others as to whether these sections should be included in this article. However I have observed that these sections are a complete duplicate of what is on Hamid Rajaei's article page. There is certainly no reason to have all this in two places. If it should remain, then the Epistemology should have a summary of the ideas with a link to the philosopher's page. As it is, it is disproportionately long for this article. Keithh (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will also add that these newly added sections are not really referenced; they are simply links to a paper that Rajaei wrote. The only links on his page are his own official site and blogs. I find all this material suspect with no demonstrable academic backing.Keithh (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Christianity and Culture: A Christian Perspective on Worldview Development, by William Valmyr; see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Stmullin. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)