Jump to content

Talk:Epistemology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Epistemology/Archive 7) (bot
Line 41: Line 41:
:{{ping|Sidonius}} As I understand it, the language links are taken from wikidata. The English article is linked to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471]. The German article is linked to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361]. One way to fix this would be to link the German article to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471]. Before you do that, you should probably check to corresponding talk pages to see whether there is a reason for having the German article linked to a different item. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sidonius}} As I understand it, the language links are taken from wikidata. The English article is linked to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471]. The German article is linked to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361]. One way to fix this would be to link the German article to [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471]. Before you do that, you should probably check to corresponding talk pages to see whether there is a reason for having the German article linked to a different item. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::OK, I will look into it. The English page that redirects to Epistemology is linked to the wikidata-page where the German article points to. Probably a left over from earlier times. Greetings [[User:Sidonius|Sidonius]] ([[User talk:Sidonius|talk]]) 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::OK, I will look into it. The English page that redirects to Epistemology is linked to the wikidata-page where the German article points to. Probably a left over from earlier times. Greetings [[User:Sidonius|Sidonius]] ([[User talk:Sidonius|talk]]) 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Scope ==

The three paragraphs in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=1162031643#Scope current version of the section] are still only there to set the stage. They say a little about the scope, but not the most important. It will be easier to understand their purpose when the scope will actually be discussed. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 16:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
:I think there is still some work to be done but it looks better now. Do we have a source for the first paragraph? [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
::Of course, we do, but you must know it. I changed the date for Russell from 1907 to 1912, because this is the year "he set out the classic analysis of knowledge as ‘true, justified, belief’", say Floridi. This is not a better date, because more search would most likely show that he discussed a perspective on epistemology way before that. For example, he discussed the subject with Louis Couturat in private letters during the years 1897-1913. Here is an extract, in French, of his reply to Couturat around the time he published his book on Leibniz in 1900 : {{Citation bloc|La logique dont je parle, c’est une logique dans un sens moins formelle: ce qu’on pourrait appeler l’Epistémologie (...). ce que dit Leibniz sur la logique symbolique est cependant très remarquable (...)|(R 21.6.00)}} In English, it reads {{Citation bloc|The logic of which I speak is a logic in a less formal sense: what one could call Epistemology (...). what Leibniz says about symbolic logic is however very remarkable (...)|(R 21.6.00)}} The source does not say it, but the attribution (R 21.6.00) seems to correspond to a letter of Russell dated June, 21, 1900. It replies to a text of Couturat (not shown here) with (C 13.5.00) as attribution. This is consistent with all the attributions, (C 5.7.01), (C 12.5.03), (C 30.6.00), (R 30.9.04), etc. in the source. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 19:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

== False impression of a global and neutral perspective in the lead ==

{{Ping|Phlsph7}} you moved the following out of the lead: {{Citation bloc|Contemporary philosophers consider it a major subfield of philosophy, along with [[ethics]], [[logic]], and [[metaphysics]],<ref name="Britannica"/> which are more ancient subdivisions of philosophy.<ref name="Blair2006" /> There are different views on the relation between epistemology, natural sciences and these ancient divisions of philosophy: William Alston considers that it has historically always been a part of cognitive psychology.{{refn|group=note|name=AlstonEpistemologyVsPsychology}} [[Willard Van Orman Quine|Quine]] viewed epistemology as a chapter of psychology<ref name="Quine1969"/><ref name="Malpas1992" /><sup>Sect.1.1</sup> whereas [[Bertrand Russell|Russell]] viewed it as a mix of psychology and logic.<ref name="Kitchener2007" /> In contrast, Popper, Carnap and others in the Vienna circle considered that only objective or intersubjective knowledge should be studied in epistemology. }}
Your argument was that it cited individual philosophers, but I do not think this is a valid argument, because they are key philosophers and they represent many philosophers and it is useful, if not necessary, to concretely identify key view points in this manner. But there is a more serious issue. You might think that the current lead is (unlike the text you moved), more global, not centered on specific views, but instead present the large categories of questions in epistemology. This would be a complete misunderstanding of the situation in epistemology. Contemporary epistemology is currently full of debates about the validity of the concepts that are assumed valid and basic in the lead. Take the last category of question (and this is really just an example): "Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge..." There is big statement being made here, as if it was the truth. We cannot do that in Wikipedia. This position on Skepticism supposes one specific notion of knowledge and also a very specific view on skepticism. Skepticism for many is only a tool, not to reject knowledge, but to reject one perspective on knowledge.{{refn|group=note|It happens often that skeptics are presented as rejecting the existence of knowledge by their detractors. In this manner, they make the skeptics appear as wrong, because how could knowledge not exist. Historians explain that in reality skepticism has always been part of a dialog between groups that have different views on knowledge.}} Only those that insist on their view of knowledge or are not even able to step back and consider other notions of knowledge would say that skepticism rejects knowledge in an absolute manner. It could be that some philosophers adopted such skepticism (though I doubt it), but in any case Wikipedia cannot present this (almost ridiculous) position as if it was its own position, even if it is presented in some source. It needs to be attributed.

In contrast, the text that you moved out is about one of the most central aspect of epistemology and it was properly attributed.

[[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 16:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk | title= Notes | group=note | refs =
{{Refn|group=note|name=AlstonEpistemologyVsPsychology|Some philosophers such as [[William Alston]] say that "if anything is clear with respect to those portions of the work of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, and Reid—to mention a few—that have been treated in the twentieth century as contributions to epistemology, it is not only that they are intimately connected with cognitive psychology but that they are best classified as cognitive psychology, with the result that extensive surgery is required to extract those portions that we are inclined to regard as 'pure' epistemology."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Alston |first=William P. |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7591/9781501720574/html |title=Beyond "Justification": Dimensions of Epistemic Evaluation |date=2006-01-01 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-2057-4 |doi=10.7591/9781501720574}}</ref>}}
}}

{{reflist-talk | refs =
<ref name="Blair2006">{{Cite book |last=Blair |first=Ann |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781139054010/type/book |title=The Cambridge History of Science |date=2006-07-03 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-139-05401-0 |editor-last=Park |editor-first=Katharine |edition=1 |chapter=Chapter 17: Natural Philosophy |doi=10.1017/chol9780521572446 |editor-last2=Daston |editor-first2=Lorraine}}</ref>

<ref name="Britannica">{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Britannica.com |last1=Stroll |first1=Avrum |title=epistemology |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology |access-date=20 May 2022 |language=en |archive-date=10 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190710175341/https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology |url-status=live }}</ref>

<ref name="Kitchener2007"> {{Cite journal| last = Kitchener| first = Richard F.| date = 2007| title = Bertrand Russell's Naturalistic Epistemology| url = https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0031819107319050/type/journal_article| journal = Philosophy| language = en| volume = 82| issue = 1| pages = 115–146| doi = 10.1017/S0031819107319050| issn = 0031-8191}}</ref>

<ref name="Malpas1992"> {{Cite book|last=Malpas| first= Jeff| year=1992 | title= Donald Davidson and the mirror of meaning: holism, truth, interpretation | location = New York | publisher= Cambridge University Press}}</ref>

<ref name="Quine1969">{{Cite book |last=Quine |first=W. V. |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/quin92204/html |chapter=Epistemology Naturalized |title=Ontological Relativity and Other Essays |date=1969-12-31 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-88754-0 |doi=10.7312/quin92204}}</ref>
}}
:I am in support of the moves that have been done by {{u|Phlsph7}}. I come to epistemology from a skeptic perspective. The statement in the lede that "Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge..." is a completely accurate statement. It does not say that skepticism denies the possibility of knowledge, it says that it questions that possibility. And this is true all the way since Pirrhonism and since [[Sextus Empiricus]]. The existence of skepticism in Ancient Greek philosophy is what forces it to deal with the question of epistemology, and the same is true regarding modern philosophy, since Erasmus and the Renaissance. I support leaving the lede precisely as it is. Thank you, [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 17:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

::Every thing that I wrote above remain valid if we replace "denies the possibility of knowledge" with "questions the possibility of knowledge". Some historians explain that skepticism has always been a part of a dialog between groups that have different views on knowledge and what was questioned or denied was the perspective on knowledge of other groups, not knowledge in an absolute manner. This is what some historians say and it makes so much sense that I will not be surprise that a lot of them say that. Common sense also suggests that, as it is the case today, there was no unique definition of knowledge in the past and the goal was to guide the search for a better definition of knowledge, not to question in an absolute manner the possibility of knowledge. Questioning all possible notions of knowledge seems a weird attitude today, because of course we know something in some way, and the same must have been true in the past. But, I am not interested in fighting on a single isolated sentence. It is not the individual sentences that matter, but the overall view points that are presented. I know that many contemporary epistemologists have a specific notion of knowledge based on cognitive science, not the detail of it, but enough to support the opposition internal vs external. The entire contemporary externalism/internalism debate depends on this perspective on knowledge. In mathematical logic, the opposition internal/external makes no sense. With Tarski and others we have the notion of interpretation and a corresponding notion of truth, but even Tarski himself explained (in a response to Popper) that this has nothing to do with any ontological position regarding an external physical reality, but is purely mathematical. Clearly, Carnap and others in the Vienna circle wanted to extend that objective perspective to knowledge in general. That was certainly not metaphysical in their view. On the contrary, the purpose was to avoid any metaphysical position in the same way as we do it in logic. The external/internal debate played no role in their perspective (except perhaps for observation statements). Popper adopted the same view when he described objective knowledge (and even presented observation statements in an objective manner in the logical side of his philosophy). In other words, as much it is true that some philosophers say that knowledge separated from an individual knower makes no sense, other philosophers have the opposite view that knowledge that is relative to a subject is not interesting and is part of cognitive science, not a part of philosophy (of knowledge). I would not go into Plato's view on knowledge, but I am sure you know about the notion of Forms, which was the real knowledge for Plato. A similar notion existed through the entire ancient Greek period and beyond. It shares similarity with the inter subjective knowledge (not specific to an individual) of Kant, the Vienna circle, Popper, etc. Many of them mentioned the connection. So, when the possibility of knowledge is questioned today or in the past, which notion is being questioned? [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Of course, many recent philosophers have rejected the internalist position that says "knowledge is in the head". For example, Hilary Putnam has famously concluded on the basis of his Twin Earth thought experiment: "Meanings ain't in the head". Some philosophers such as Donald Davidson even rejected the opposition internal/external itelf, as much as he rejected other oppositions: realism/idealism, etc. The point is that the statement "... questions the possibility of knowledge" is unclear because what notion of knowledge is actually questioned is not clear. When we read the article, it becomes clear that it is justified true belief and its variants (true belief + warrant of some kind) that is being questioned, but Wikipedia cannot adopt this restricted view on knowledge. It's not knowledge that is being questioned, but a particular view on knowledge and, at some point,this would need to be corrected. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The notion that is being questioned by Skepticism is the notion of the possibility of knowledge, exactly as the sentence says: "Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge..." All the rest of the wall-of-text full of jargon above is your own philosophy, nothing else. You can quote as many "famous" philosophers as you want (I've never heard of most of them in any case), what you are posting above is your own synthesis of these post-modern, off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy. Thank you, [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 20:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::::You are joking. I cited [[William Alston|William Alsto]]n, [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Willard Van Orman Quine|W. V. Quine]], [[Rudolf Carnap|Carnap]], [[Karl Popper]], [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]], [[Hilary Putnam]] (and [[Plato]]) and most of the times not directly, but using secondary sources. Wow, it's not me that is in a bubble. What are the philosophers that I should cite to be "mainstream". If we know them, then it will be fine, but the article will have to indicate that it presents their "mainstream" view point. Wikipedia cannot present their "mainstream" view as if it was the truth. The readers need to know. I just want that the readers know what view point is presented. And, it will have to put in its larger context anyway. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Besides, I think you missed the point that I am not focusing on this particular statement. That particular statement in itself is not a big deal. I will slowly edit the article itself (and show in doing so how much it is not neutral), and at some point I will make sure the lead summarizes the article. At that time, I might revise the sentence. The idea might be better presented in a completely different manner. Nothing is frozen. Why this negative attitude? You seem to believe that you need to protect the article against me. That's not the way to collaborate. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 21:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Since I am arguing here that since antiquity, and again since the Renaissance, Epistemology is first of all a function of the questions posed by Skepticism, I suggest you go read:
*Richard H. Popkin, ''The History of Skepticism: From Erasmus to Spinoza'', University of California Press, Berkeley, 1979. (I had suggested that already to {{u|Phlsph7}} in the "History of Philosophy" talk page.
As for editing the article, I will definitely be reading anything you add or change, and I will certainly revert whatever looks to me like these philosophical forays into post-modern jargon-filled (and name-dropping of any idiot that has ever published anything as a "famous philospher") philosophical streams of consciousness. [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 21:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{Ping|warshy}}, I am looking at Popkin's book. However, in view of the inadequate tone that you have taken with accusation of {{tq|name dropping of any idiot}} and of only doing my {{tq|own synthesis of these post-modern, off-the-mainstream new trends in philosophy}}, I decided to remove my response here and respond in your personal talk page instead. Here, I will only mention that your source is highly religiously oriented with about 320 occurences of the word "God" in a book that has about 380 pages and, thus, it is better to use other sources with other view points to respect the neutrality principle of Wikipedia. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 06:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::I agree with {{u|Warshy}}'s assessment that the mentioned phrase on philosophical skepticism is in tune with standard views. I also share his doubts about the lengthy response to it: it's not clear how most of the interpretative excursion reaching from mathematical logic to Plato's theory of forms is relevant to this straightforward point. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 07:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I repeat again that I was not discussing that single phrase. This single short phrase does not deserve an excursion from mathematical logic to Plato's theory of form, but the overall subject deserves it, because it describes the opposition between a psychological view on knowledge (with belief and internal mental states being central concepts) and an objective or intersubjective view on knowledge. This fundamental opposition must be considered to situate contemporary epistemology in a larger context, which is useful to improve the article. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 07:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

::::I think it's probably best to work on the body of the article before changing the lead as hopefully the lead will follow from the content of the article. So I think it was right to move these changes away from the lead now.

::::In terms of article content, I think there are two issues you're bringing up (unless I am misunderstanding). The first is the debate around whether knowledge is in some way internal or psychological or whether it is some kind of external objective relationship. This clearly deserves a high level of coverage; the internalism-externalism debate is very important in epistemology and should hopefully make its way into the lead eventually.

::::The other issue is the relationship between epistemology and psychology as disciplines. I think this is a lot less important and almost all epistemologists are going to resist attempts to identify epistemology with psychology. In fact, this idea was seen as one of the most radical aspects of Quine's naturalised epistemology, especially given that psychology is seemingly descriptive while epistemology is seemingly normative ([https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/ see here for good coverage of this]). Therefore, I think we should make sure not to give this viewpoint undue weight. [[User:Shapeyness|Shapeyness]] ([[User talk:Shapeyness|talk]]) 10:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you, because I now see a normal reply that gives me the impression we read the same sources. I am very glad that you say the internalist/extermalist debate is considered very important. I also like that you used the terms internal and psychological as synonymous in that context. Regarding the relation between epistemology and psychology as domains, it is perhaps the most important aspect of the history of how the disciplines in science and philosophy were divided. I understand that the internal/external debate is different and not historical, but a good understanding of one implies a good understanding of the other. Russell's internalism was clearly expressed in terms of epistemology being a mix of logic and cognitive psychology. Quine's internalism was expressed as epistemology being a chapter of psychology. Nowadays we see the field of psychology in a very restricted manner, perhaps more descriptive now than before. It thus seems that these great philosophers were greatly mistaken—yes you make a good point regarding the descriptive versus normative aspect. Yet they were only defending internalism.
:::::Now, a point of clarification. The expression {{tq|external objective relationship}} that you used is perfectly fine, but the notion of objective knowledge is something different. It is a different concept that exists at a different level, which is neither the internal or external reality, but is related to both.{{Refn|group=note|Superficially, it might seem that it is the same thing, because this relationship is also neither internal or external and is related to both. However, this relationship is not itself knowledge, but only a warrant for knowledge, which is still an internal mental state.}} I do not want to defend objective knowledge as a truth here. It's not our job to do that. However, irrespective of its truth, it is a necessary and important concept if we want to situate epistemology and skepticism in a larger context, especially with respect to Plato's view on knowledge, Kant, etc. I would even say that there is no way to correctly explain the effect that different views on science had on epistemology without that context, because this reference point is needed to explain the effect of these views.
:::::A point that could be polemical is whether the assumptions behind the internalist/externalist debate, not the assumptions behind internalism nor the assumptions behind externalism, but the assumptions behind the overall debate in itself, should be presented as truths. These assumptions are rejected in the notion of objective knowledge. For example, Popper's view was that mental states, beliefs, etc. are useful to informally introduce epistemology, but they should not be a part of epistemology per se: for Popper, epistemology should study objective knowledge. It is not our job to argue for or against objective knowledge, but neither should we make Wikipedia rejects it as if its inadequacy was a truth, because objective knowledge is not dead. There are still many people who accept Popper's approach or similar approaches based on objective knowledge. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 14:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk|group=note|title=Notes}}


== Reorganisation of history in two sections ==
== Reorganisation of history in two sections ==

Revision as of 00:14, 28 November 2023

Template:Vital article

Former good articleEpistemology 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 9, 2006[article nominee]Listed
February 25, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Link to German article on Epistemology

In the list of links to articles in other languages German seems to be missing even though there is an article called "Erkenntnistheorie" that links to this English article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkenntnistheorie). I could not figure out how to add German to the list myself or I am lacking the necessary admin privileges. Maybe anybody who has the necessary privileges to edit that list could help out? Greetings Sidonius (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sidonius: As I understand it, the language links are taken from wikidata. The English article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. The German article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361. One way to fix this would be to link the German article to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. Before you do that, you should probably check to corresponding talk pages to see whether there is a reason for having the German article linked to a different item. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will look into it. The English page that redirects to Epistemology is linked to the wikidata-page where the German article points to. Probably a left over from earlier times. Greetings Sidonius (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation of history in two sections

I reorganized the section on history in two sections. The first section is about understanding epistemology in terms of evolving concepts and questions. The second section is about understanding or looking at fixed contemporary epistemological concepts and questions within the history of philosophy. Some individual sentences in these two approaches might look very similar, but when we consider what is done globally, these are two completely different approaches and they must be clearly distinguished. Rather than trying to explain, here is an extract from Zagzebski 2020 that illustrates the first approach:[1]

The idea that the knowing state is a species of the belief state undergirds the almost universal practice in epistemology of defining knowledge as true belief plus something else. But this view can be disputed since the history of epistemic concepts shows that belief and knowledge were sometimes regarded as mutually exclusive epistemic states.

It is not (yet), but it could eventually be added to the first section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about Descartes

I am now working on the paragraph about Descartes's influence in the history of epistemology. This paragraph is, of course, perfectly appropriate in this section, which takes "history" to mean the study of the evolving concepts and questions of the past that are relevant to the understanding of contemporary epistemology. Descartes and the early modern period in general are often presented as the sources of the modern internalist view, which is so central in epistemology, even though the internalist/externalist debate as we know it today only started after Gettier in 1963. I need to find sources for this. I know I have them, but I need to find them again. Comments or suggestions will be appreciated. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just read (finally, since your posts seem to show that you do read a lot) the chapter on Descartes in Popkin's book that we already discussed. After you read that, I am ready to discuss the matter of Descartes, Spinoza, and the whole philosophy of the early modern period. Let's see what you come up with, other than the number of times that God is mentioned in the book... warshy (¥¥) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for sources that make a link with contemporary epistemology through the internalist/externalist debate, but a link through the skepticism debate would be fine. However, I am looking for an explicit link. I do not want to expand on Descartes and skepticism per se, but see what is the role of this part of the history in the path toward contemporary epistemology. I wish that the article remains centered on contemporary epistemology, even in that section. The role of that section is to put contemporary epistemology within its historical context. Perhaps you can tell me, according to your understanding, which part of the two chapters on Descartes in this 1979 book might contribute to that goal. Some extracts would be useful. Pages could be problematic, because there has been many editions of that book. I know that it is a bit superficial as a criteria, but the word "epistemology" does not occur at all in these two chapters. Had there been a clear intention to create a link with (contemporary) epistemology, the word would have been used. I know that skepticism is central in epistemology, but I prefer sources that make an explicit link with contemporary epistemology over a source that does not make this explicit link. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How in hell you can start talking about "modern epistemology" (after 1963, according to you), and the internal/external debate, without first mentioning Kant'sCritique of Pure Reason, and the concepts of Noumenon or the Thing-in-itself? And how can you start talking about these fundamental concepts for epistemology, without describing first the basic views on these matters put forward by Descartes and Spinoza? I don't think you can. But since for you all that matters is "modern epistemology" and the internal/external debate, we get this whole confusion here. And I have already mentioned this too once: Whereas Descartes and Spinoza wrote their philosophies in Latin, Kant, in the next century (the 18th), wrote his already in his vernacular German. Without a basic historic approach to the development of Philosophy in general, and of Epistemology in particular, what you get is this shallow single focus on "modern epistemology" and the internal/external debate. But the internal/external debate in modern epistemology really starts with Kant, and without clarifying that first (and studying that matter, as far as you are concerned, in my view), you cannot proceed here. If we can't talk directly and clearly about the same basic concepts, there is no sense, as far as I am concerned, in continuing discussing these matters with you here. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by contemporary epistemology is epistemology as it is done now in recent sources, the more recent the better, which is a standard approach for an encyclopedic article on epistemology. We want to be the most up to date as possible. We certainly want to situate this contemporary epistemology within the history of concepts and questions in philosophy. This includes recent history and less recent history. So, in this way we can cover Kant, etc. as long as you provide sources that make the link with contemporary epistemology. If needed for completeness, we can add whatever needed about Kant, Descartes, etc. However, we cannot start to cover Kant, Descartes, etc. in general. There are other articles that do so. And if you do not see that the internal/external debate is almost what epistemology was specifically about in the recent years, then I do not know which sources you read. Almost all other specifically epistemological concepts such as reliabilism, virtue epistemology, etc., can be seen as a part of this debate.
But, I am interested to know what it is that you want to say in that paragraph about Descartes. Is it just that you are unhappy that I question whether Popkin is a useful source for the specific content that I want to cover now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're talking about is really contemporary epistemology. And I, for one, don't give a shit about it. I care only about historical epistemology. So fine, you have your interests, and I have mine. But the article about epistemology on wikipedia has to work chronologically. All your contemporary stuff can go at the end, after the development of historical epistemology is properly described. And the two sections should not me mixed up in any way, shape your form. Now, in my view you know nothing really about the history of epistemology before the current, contemporary stuff. And you also refuse to learn about it. I don't have the time now, but with time, in next months, I will go over the article again, and separate all your contemporary stuff, and move it to the end, chronologically, where it belongs. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is false that I know nothing really about the history of epistemology before the current, contemporary stuff and you should not say things like that to another Wikipedian, especially when you have no evidence to support your claim. It's the opposite. A year or so ago, I knew essentially nothing about contemporary epistemology and I thought that "epistemology" was simply another name for the philosophies of Hume, Kant, the Vienna circle, Popper, etc. I felt that the current article was too much biased on a strange view that knowledge had to be analysed as a species of belief, not to mention that, in this view, some say that a belief is only knowledge if it is true and justified. I was not even aware of the 1963 Gettier problem. However, I knew about Hume, Kant, etc. When I realised that these issues, which I knew nothing about, were the essential part of an actual academic field of study, with many books, entire department devoted to it, etc., I concluded that this field, called "epistemology" disconnected itself from useful philosophy. Many sources say so. They say that epistemology today is a useless bubble of knowledge, people talking among themselves about issues that would not have interested philosophers of the past.
But, unlike you, I decided that since really, there are many sources on that specific subject, there should be an article about it and I felt appropriate that it should be named "Epistemology", because this is the way it is named in recent encyclopedia articles and in general in the literature. In the same way, an article about physics should use contemporary sources on physics, even if it is not called "contemporary physics". Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as your contemporary stuff is kept separate, and chronologically at the end, where it belongs, you can do with it whatever you want. But this article is about classic, historic epistemology first. In reality, as far as I am concerned, you could take your stuff and start a new article about "contemporary epistemology." Maybe in the end you'll have to do that, if the stuff you keep adding here starts to get under my skin. But we'll see. Right now I don't have the time for this distraction. 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I would not mind that this article is about something else than (contemporary) epistemology with only something about it at the end. I am not interested in fight about articles' title, at the least not until after the articles are well written. So, let us suppose that this article is not about (contemporary) epistemology, what would it be about? In other words, can you say a bit more what you have in mind when you say "classic, historic epistemology". One way to do that would be to give a classic book on the subject from a notorious philosopher. Would that be Popkin's book? Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Warshy Your comments in this thread are really concerning. An article about X, not titled "History of X", should be about the up-to-date scholarly understanding of X, and have history as one significant aspect of that coverage. "[T]he article about epistemology on wikipedia has to work chronologically" - nope, that's not how we do other articles about abstract concepts and there's no requirement we do that here. What's concerning is that you don't feel the need to advance arguments (repetition isn't an argument), but describe your own feelings as if the rest of us have to abide by them: "if the stuff you keep adding here starts to get under my skin." "I care only about historical epistemology." This is an WP:OWNERSHIP attitude and not how we are supposed to work on this collaborative project. You're also making personal attacks against other editors, which we are definitely not supposed to do. We're not a feelings-over-facts community, and if you are going to edit the article to move the most relevant content to the end, based on feelings you have, then that's disruption. I applaud what User:Dominic Mayers is trying to do, and ask both of you to properly sign your comments so this discussion isn't unnecessarily hard to follow. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I haven't edited this article up to this point, and don't intend to do any editing on it soon. You are right: I was mostly expressing my own feelings about the subject, basically to see if there were any other editors that concurred with some of them. Apparently there are not. I agree with your definition: "up-to-date scholarly understanding of X, and have history as one significant aspect of that coverage." That should be the guiding principle here, and you expressed it better than me. I'll refrain from further comments that may give the impression I am trying to make a personal attack, which was not my intention. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find interesting what is written about Descartes versus internalism right at the start in the preface of Plantinga 1993: it says that there was a transition from externalism to internalism through Descartes.[2] Of course, this is a contemporary concept seen in the history, because, at the time, they did not think in terms of an internalist/externalist debate. But, the transition itself is a genuine historical phenomena independent of the internalist/externalist debate. It makes me interested in finding more sources to explain better the connection between the debate per se and the way the transition is seen independently of that debate. Maybe I will find something in Majors & Sawyer 2007 given that Descartes is known to have used the idea that one has access to one’s knowledge in a privileged manner (and that is what opacity is about), a kind of argument that was not much used before him (and is opposed to semantic externalism).[3] Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new paragraph about Descartes

Here is what I propose:

Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period.[note 1] Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular,[note 2] but both debates have been related[4][5][6][7] and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology.[note 3] Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths.[note 4] In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato.[note 5] However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism.[8] In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.[note 6]

Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this here first, and thank for including Popkin in your refs. The ref pointing to him should have a page number too, so it can be verified. Other than that, according to the guidelines explained to me above by MartinPoulter you did a good job. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued efforts at improving this article. On the prose level, your draft reads well. On a short look, I couldn't find the discussion of the relation of Decartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology in the Popkin 1979. What is the page number of the relevant text?
It seems you directly copied the sentence "This view, in which the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism" from Frankish 2020. You have to be very careful with this since it is a copyright violation. Please make sure to remove any other sentences that were directly copied or closely paraphrased. The relevant policies are WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding copyright, I only forgot to put it in quote. I did not use Popkin as a source for the relation of Descartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology, but for the next sentence. Popkin says nothing about internalism/externalism. The relation is claimed in that first sentence, but not explained. The sentence from Popkin was only added for completeness. It is Descartes's dualism that is easily related to the externalist/internalist debate. This is going to be explained with sources, of course, at some point in the article. I am sure, you have no doubt that sources made this obvious connection. Here, the first sentence is just a lead sentence to motivate the paragraph in the context of contemporary epistemology: its point is going to be expanded and sourced in the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the copyright problem by using a quotation. The claim about the relation of Decartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology is not obvious so this should be backed up by a references to ensure verifiability. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the link must exist in sources. Otherwise, the paragraph is useless. The subject is contemporary epistemology. If there is no link with contemporary epistemology (and the only link imaginable is with the externalist/internalist debate), then I was completely wrong in discussing Cartesian dualism. However, the fact that the link is not immediately given would not be a valid reason to remove the content. You need to have reasons to believe that the link is not verifiable to remove it. Instead, you should positively try to source the link. This is what collaboration is about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no way opposed to collaboration and anyone willing to help get this draft ready for inclusion in the article is welcome. Reviewing is one form of collaboration. However, finding sources for a text someone else wrote can be time-consuming, especially if the claims are rather specific and not covered by overview sources. For example, I took the time to have a look at the articles on internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and the internet encyclopedia of philosophy ([1], [2], [3], and [4]). Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell, they do not directly support the claim about Descartes' dualism. This could imply that the claim is not that widely accepted. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources are indeed centered on contemporary epistemology. They are also tertiary sources and that is another issue, which I will not discuss here, though it's not unrelated to the point I am going to make. There are many sources that complain that the entire field of contemporary epistemology too much ignored the true history of philosophy and this can be seen in these sources (and perhaps even more, because they are tertiary sources on the subject). I believe that Wikipedia do not have to follow the tertiary sources you mentioned and can, and even should, also present other points view about contemporary epistemology, which are more like an external view on the field. I do not start with my personal point of view and look for sources to support it. I start with the general idea that the true historical perspective is important and then see that there is a paragraph on Descartes and, therefore, I look for sources that cover specifically the link between the history of Cartesian concepts and contemporary epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eid1803 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new paragraph on Descartes

Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period.[note 1] Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular,[note 2] but both debates have been related[4][5][6][7] and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology.[note 3] Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths.[note 4] In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato.[note 5] However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism".[8] In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.[note 6]

Notes

  1. ^ a b Richard Fumerton presents an argument based on Leibniz's law against externalism (Fumerton 2003) and then writes: "This kind of argument has a troubled history. A much criticized version of it seemed to constitute the basis of Descartes’ argument for dualism."
  2. ^ a b Hilary Kornblith argued in an entire paper (Kornblith 1985) that Descartes made assumptions that are not compatible with contemporary epistemology. For example, in section III of this paper, he wrote: "How ought we, subjectively speaking, arrive at our beliefs? What processes available to us, if any, seem conducive to truth? The role an answer to this question is likely to play in a naturalistic epistemology is radically different from the role Descartes believed it would play." Nathan Ballantyne suggests that Descartes did not even share our contemporary epistemological concerns. He wrote (Ballantyne 2019): "Descartes set for himself a far more ambitious goal than most epistemologists aim at today. He didn't seek to describe the nature of knowledge, justified belief, or any other epistemic state—he wanted to eliminate his mistakes and ignorance so he could act more effectively."
  3. ^ a b John Turri, Mark Alfano, and John Greco wrote (Turri, Alfano & Greco 2021): "Sosa applied his « virtue perspectivism » to adjudicate disputes in contemporary epistemology [...] between internalists and externalists."
  4. ^ a b In a chapter about Descartes's skepticism (Popkin 1979, chap. IX), Popkin wrote: "The method of doubt leads naturally to the cogito, and not supernaturally to truth as the 'nouveaux Pyrrhoniens' claimed. [...] However, the one truth produced by the method of doubt is not a premise from which all other truths follow. Rather it is a basis for rational discourse which makes it possible to recognize other truths." and in chap. IX, p.189: "Each stage on the way to absolute truth after the cogito strenghtened the escape from scepticism, and made more secure the stages already passed. The criterion led [...] to knowledge of the mechanistic universe."
  5. ^ a b Already with Plato, there existed a duality between the Forms and transitory experiences in space-time. For Plato (see SEP Episteme and Techne), the Forms informed a kind of techne. Dorothea Frede wrote (Frede 2020): "There is just too much evidence that Plato never discarded his theory of independent Forms but continued to regard them as the invariable principles of the nature of their changeable and variable representatives."  Maria Rosa Antognazzia says (Antognazza 2015) that, for Plato, one can only have knowledge (episteme) of Forms: Plato uses "doxa" when referring  to transitory particulars. See also Ayers & Antognazza 2019, Sec.1.4.
  6. ^ a b Howard Robinson wrote (Robinson 2023): "A crisis in the history of dualism came, however, with the growing popularity of mechanism in science in the nineteenth century. According to the mechanist, the world is, as it would now be expressed, ‘closed under physics’. This means that everything that happens follows from and is in accord with the laws of physics. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the physical world by the mind in the way that interactionism seems to require. According to the mechanist, the conscious mind is an epiphenomenon (a notion given general currency by T. H. Huxley 1893): that is, it is a by-product of the physical system which has no influence back on it."

References

  1. ^ Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus (2020-11-19). Epistemic Values: Collected Papers in Epistemology (1 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197529171.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-752917-1.
  2. ^ Plantinga, Alvin (1993-07-22). "Preface". Warrant: The Current Debate (1 ed.). Oxford University PressNew York. pp. v–x. doi:10.1093/0195078624.002.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-507862-6. Retrieved 2023-10-15.
  3. ^ Majors, Brad; Sawyer, Sarah (2007). "Entitlement, Opacity, and Connection". In Goldberg, S. (ed.). Internalism and externalism in semantics and epistemology. Oxford University Press.
  4. ^ a b Chase, J. (2001). "Is Externalism about Content Inconsistent with Internalism about Justification?". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 79 (2): 227–246. doi:10.1080/713659224. ISSN 0004-8402.
  5. ^ a b Brueckner, A. (2002). "The consistency of content-externalism and justification-internalism". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 80 (4). Routledge: 512–515.
  6. ^ a b Carter, J. A.; Palermos, S. O. (2016). "Epistemic Internalism, Content Externalism and the Subjective/Objective Justification Distinction". American Philosophical Quarterly. 53 (3). North American Philosophical Publications, University of Illinois Press: 231–244. ISSN 0003-0481. Retrieved 14 November 2023.
  7. ^ a b Morvarid, M. (2021). "A new argument for the incompatibility of content externalism with justification internalism". Synthese. 198 (3). Springer Verlag: 2333–2353. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02208-7.
  8. ^ a b Frankish, Keith (2020). "The Lure of the Cartesian Sideshow". The Philosophers' Magazine (88): 69–74. doi:10.5840/tpm20208814. ISSN 1354-814X.

References specific to notes

[1][2][3] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

  1. ^ Popkin, Richard H. (1979). The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza (1 ed.). Berkeley Los Angeles London: University of California Press. doi:10.2307/jj.6142252.
  2. ^ Robinson, Howard (2023). "Dualism". In Zalta, E. N.; Nodelman, U. (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  3. ^ Kornblith, H. (1985). "EVER SINCE DESCARTES". The Monist. 68 (2). Oxford University Press: 264–276. ISSN 0026-9662. Retrieved 14 November 2023.
  4. ^ Ballantyne, Nathan (2019-10-31). Knowing Our Limits (1 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190847289.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-084728-9.
  5. ^ Parry, Richard (2021). "Episteme and Techne". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.).
  6. ^ Frede, Dorothea (2020-12-18). "Plato's Forms as Functions and Structures". History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis. 23 (2): 291–316. doi:10.30965/26664275-02302002. ISSN 2666-4283.
  7. ^ Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2015-01-02). "The Benefit to Philosophy of the Study of Its History". British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 23 (1): 161–184. doi:10.1080/09608788.2014.974020. ISSN 0960-8788.
  8. ^ Ayers, Michael; Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2019-04-18). "Knowledge and Belief from Plato to Locke". Knowing and Seeing. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–33. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198833567.003.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-883356-7. Retrieved 2023-11-15.
  9. ^ Turri, John; Alfano, Mark; Greco, John (2021). "Virtue Epistemology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  10. ^ Fumerton, Richard (2003). "13: Introspection and Internalism". In Nuccetelli, Susana (ed.). New essays on semantic externalism and self-knowledge. MIT Press. pp. 257–276. ISBN 0262140837.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy

@Dominic Mayers: The time and effort you have invested in this section are inspiring and your recent adjustments solve the problem of the initial version. As the text in the paragraph suggests, the way the topic of the paragraph is related to epistemology seems to be rather complicated and indirect. Let's see if I can get it straight:

  1. Contemporary epistemology is part of epistemology
  2. The internal-external debate in epistemology belongs to contemporary epistemology
  3. The internal-external debate in epistemology is not the same as the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind but there are relations between them
  4. Various arguments are used in the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind
  5. Some of these argument refer to Descartes' dualism

It seems that this chain of connection is not made in a single source that is cited but several sources need to be combined to sketch out this path. Are you sure that this rather distant relation justifies adding a full paragraph to a wide overview article like this one (see WP:PROPORTION)? This issue could be avoided by instead adding this discussion to an article that has the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind as a main topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes is such an important figure that I do not see a need to prove the relevancy of a paragraph on Descartes in that section about how contemporary epistemology is historically informed. At the same time, claiming that Descartes had epistemological questions or finding contemporary epistemological concepts in Descartes' philosophy is something else. It is, in Barry Stroud's terminology, a "historically 'oriented' contemporary epistemology", a very different and controversial subject: many say that it is incorrect to use past philosophies in that manner. I am not saying that we should not present all pertinent view points on this, but it should be covered elsewhere, not in that section. This section is different. It must consider Descartes' philosophy as standardly seen by historians and present sources that discuss how this could inform, if at all, contemporary epistemology. I am not trying to infer that Descartes' dualism informed contemporary epistemology. On the contrary, contemporary epistemology is centred around justification and there are sources that say that Descartes was far away from contemporary justification concerns. So, the paragraph is just being plain direct about it. There is no OR at all, but I know that is not your concern. It is relevancy. In view of the importance of Descartes, the question whether it has informed contemporary epistemology is relevant. Let me add that I looked at Descartes' skepticism to see if it could have informed contemporary epistemology. Sources such as Popkin explain that Descartes used skepticism in a very special manner, not to deny knowledge of the laws of transitory external phenomena, but to gain certainty in the mind side. It is paradoxical to use skepticism to gain certainty, but that is what sources say. Descartes' argument is that God gave us a priori knowledge and skepticism is a systematic way to unveil this gift of God. No source explains how this part of Descartes' view might have informed contemporary epistemology or even philosophy of mind and I guess it did not.It is not that sources completely ignore this. For example, Robert Audi wrote "... Descartes’s well-known denial that God would allow such a world, but I cannot pursue it here."[1] On the other hand, we have sources that explain how Descartes' dualism informed the internalist/internalist debate. The more I think about it, the content of that paragraph is not that Descartes has informed contemporary epistemology, but that he has not, except indirectly through the externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind. This is clearly relevant in that section and interesting. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phlsph7 again. And this whole new excursus here is nothing more than WP:OR in my view. Descartes was no skeptic at all. He recognized the challenge of Skepticism (which is an ever present challenge which Epistemology cannot avoid), and tried to provide paths for the achievement of knowledge and certainty, which are the goals of Epistemology. I went through the Britannica entry on Epistemology again, and it is overall much better that what we have here, in my view. There is no mention in it whatsoever of the internal-external debate in so-called "comtemporary epistemology" as far as I can see. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part about Descartes' skepticism is from Popkin, which you suggested. Moreover, the paragraph, referring to Popkin, says what you say: Descartes found his base for certainty in the cogito. You further say that Descartes had the same goal as epistemology, but if by "epistemology" here you mean contemporary epistemology, this is controversial and requires attribution and it's not the subject of that section anyway. This section is not about whether or not contemporary epistemological questions or concepts can be located in past philosophies. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is a big mess, in my view, nothing else unfortunately. Simple misunderstandings. warshy (¥¥) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I am going to take into account what was said here. The paragraph seems to fight in a weak manner (by referring to philosophy of mind) to say that Descartes informed contemporary epistemology. I think that Phlsph7 correctly noticed that. There is something interesting to be said about the question how Descartes informed contemporary epistemology, but that one thing (the indirect connection through philosophy of mind) is only a part of it and not the first thing to be said: though I still think it is very interesting and relevant, it must be given its just place. Kornblith's view point that it did not inform naturalized epistemology is also interesting on its own. Note that he did not say that Descartes did not inform contemporary epistemology at large, because that would be a very big statement to make: there might be contemporary epistemologists that take a metaphysical view similar to Descartes' view based on apriori given to us by God (renamed as Nature). Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Audi, Robert (2018-09-04). "Intellectual Virtue, Knowledge, and Justification". In Battaly, Heather (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315712550. ISBN 978-1-315-71255-0.

We can proceed with the central concepts and see what context is needed

The context that was moved at the end might not be what people in the contemporary epistemological bubble expect, but Wikipedia is not the place to reproduce bubbles that occur in academic circles. I mean, one might feel that the section on central concepts is self sufficient and does not need context, but that is because it is presented as a bubble that stands on its own. It presents a view of analytic philosophy on knowledge, in particular, the justified true belief view, as if it was the only view. This is not what Wikipedia must do. The whole point of having a context is to change that. But, we can start with the central concepts and try to present them in a way that acknowledges the specific place contemporary epistemology has within its context. Will see how it goes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]