Jump to content

Talk:Knowledge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AJackl (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 15 August 2022 (→Issues with the Lead: Agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


Untitled

This article covers many aspects of knowledge. For the philosophical areas of knowledge please use epistemology.

Wrong knowledge is still knowledge

"Complementary to the sociology of knowledge is the sociology of ignorance[1] including the study of nescience, ignorance, knowledge gaps or non-knowledge as inherent features of knowledge making."[2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sociologyofignorance.com The Sociology of Ignorance
  2. ^ Beck, Ulrich; Wehling, Peter (2012). Rubio, F.D.; Baert, P. (eds.). The politics of non-knowing: An emerging area of social and political conflict in reflexive modernity. New York: Routledge. pp. 33–57. ISBN 0415497108.
  3. ^ Gross, Matthias (2010). Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262013482.
  4. ^ Moore, Wilbert; Tumin, Melvin (1949). "Some social functions of ignorance". American Sociological Review. 14 (6): 787–796. doi:10.2307/2086681.

Knowledge > Understanding

Wikipedia defines knowledge as a understanding, but it isn't the same thing. Knowledge needs to be revised to exclude understanding. Eliasladd (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention this as well, as new to editing I am not sure what to do apart from talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyHatcher (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could propose something else! :) Make a specific proposal of a sentence you want to change and your new formulation (with sources). Also be aware that the lead paragraphs (see WP:LEAD) are just a summary of the article. Best — Mvbaron (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Makes my question seem silly know but will get to something :) User:DannyHatcher 6 November 2021
Don't worry DannyHatcher! feel free to either (i) work on the text in your sandbox, or (ii) propose something here, or (iii) be WP:BOLD and edit the article directly. -- Mvbaron (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truth/es accepted as knowledge/s ?

Are truthes knowledges or this question better to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ? --Visionhelp (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

subject The subject of science is what discussed in that science معین پورصادق (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what change you are asking for -----Snowded TALK 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typo suggestion

In the wikiproject table found in external link section, it says small "knowledge" and must begin with capital letter "Knowledge". 196.188.240.85 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaeism

Aramaic manda means "knowledge," and is conceptually related to the Greek term gnosis. This means the Mandaeans or 'knowers' are the only surviving Gnostics from antiquity. Mandaeans also refer to themselves as Nasurai (Nasoraeans) meaning guardians or possessors of knowledge. This has a clear connection to the religious concept of knowledge. As a Gnostic religion, "Mandaeanism stresses salvation of the soul through esoteric knowledge of its divine origin." (Encyclopedia Britannica) Mcvti (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SO we just had a section on Gnostics added and I left that; this is a summary level article after all. If anything the religions section is getting disproportionate anyway and we can't list every group and sect that uses the knowledge word or makes a knowledge claim. So while Gnosticism deserves a mention I can't see a case for Mandaeism being notable enough for inclusion -----Snowded TALK 17:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mandaeism has a greater connection to the religious concept of knowledge than all the other religions that are already listed since it is literally their namesake. If the most important aspect of a religion is knowledge in order to achieve salvation, that is more than enough to be notable in order to be included in the list of religions. I was actually surprised it was not already listed Mcvti (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK that is your opinion, but you've already said it is a subset of Gnosticism, Have you got a third party source which establishes its importance in the context of an article on Knowledge? -----Snowded TALK 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are a type of Gnosticism, in fact the only surviving Gnostic religion from antiquity. They can be listed under Gnosticism section and described if that would help solve the issue. Mcvti (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just listing sources that talk about Manadaens and we don't accept original research or interpretation or synthesis of primary sources. Request was for a third party source which says in some way, that their take on knowledge has high significance -----Snowded TALK 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked at the sources, they all discuss the importance of knowledge in Mandaeism as a key aspect of the religion. Please do not accuse me of providing original research which is false. I have provided enough references to show the significance of the religious concept of knowledge in Mandaeism. I have even offered to add them under Gnosticism which you did not acknowledge. I find you will continue to make excuses not to add them showing you do not have a neutral point of view on the topic. Mcvti (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of disputing the importance of knowledge in Mandaeism. I am saying that you have not offered any source which establishes that Mandaeism's take on knowledge has any special notability. We have brief descriptions of major religions perspectives which can be justified and I'm OK with Gnosticism being added. If you think it should be a part of Gnosticism then again we need a source that shows it is notable. If you can't source it then it doesn't go in - and please don't speculate on my motivation that really doesn't help -----Snowded TALK 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Britanicca says it's a "Gnostic sect" and says its origins are disputed. Also it is very much a minor sect. Nothing to support your claims for notability. Either way its tagged - I'll give it a day or so and if there is no new evidence or work on gaining a consensus I'll restore the article to its previous consensus position -----Snowded TALK 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research so the tag you applied does not belong there. Reliable sources have already been cited. Being the only surviving Gnostic religion from antiquity makes it very much notable. From Mandaeism, the religion is at least 2000 years old and scholars specializing in the religion believe it originated in the Palestine / Israel region. The renowned scholar of Mandaeism Jorunn J. Buckley believes Mandaeism is of Judean or Israelite origin. I don't understand the rationale behind refusing to mention the last surviving Gnostics with a few sentences under Gnosticism backed up by reliable sources and pertinent to the religious concepts of knowledge. Are you questioning the origins of the religion or whether you recognize them as a religion and worthy of being mentioned or the relevance of the religious concept of knowledge to the religion. In any case, you do not have consensus to remove the section and I advise you to look at some of the sources I listed to get a better understanding of how important the concept of knowledge or gnosis (manda) is to the religion. Mcvti (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a third party source which said it is a minor sect and the origins are disputed. You are arguing a position from primary/secondary sources which is original research. You are also failing to follow normal practice you were bold, you were reverted, you now discuss you don't assert you are right without gaining consensus. You do not remove tags without agreement. Without a source establishing NOTABILITY the material will be deleted and if you restore it without consensus on the talk page you will be reported for edit warring. I will repeat that I am not disputing knowledge is relevant to an article on the religion but I don't think that the religion is notable enough for this article and it certainly fails any test of balance.-----Snowded TALK 07:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through the discussion above. I've read through dozens of sources about Mandaeism and will be happy to share a few of my observations and thoughts.
  • This is definitely not original research.
  • The sentences are correct and do not reach original conclusions from WP:SYNTH.
  • Manda does indeed mean 'knowledge' and/or 'gnosis'. I am familiar with Mandaic and can confirm this.
  • Mandaeism is certainly not a non-notable minor sect. It is one of the major ancient religions of Mesopotamia and western Persia and is absolutely crucial to understanding the origins of Christianity, Islam, and Manichaeism. See for example Psalms of Thomas#Mandaean parallels. Mandaeans form one of the most notable Gnostic groups. If most scholars had to pick and choose a few notable notable Gnostic groups to analyze, they would be Mandaeism, Manichaeism, Nag Hammadi Gnosticism, and Catharism. The Gnostic Archive at gnosis.org also has dedicated collections for these groups, but not for the other truly minor sects. The less notable Gnostic sects are the Elkasites, Quqites, and dozens of other minor groups that were only given passing mentions in historical sources; and of course, certainly not neo-Gnostic New Age groups. If someone were to write a paragraph making spurious claims about the Quqites in this article, then I would keep the OR tag, but basic facts about Mandaeism are all right.
  • There is wide consensus among historians of religion that Mandaeism is in fact the only surviving Gnostic religion, although Gnosticism itself is a fuzzy category. Its importance and comparative notability have been confirmed by nearly all scholars of Mandaeism, including Torgny Säve-Söderbergh and Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley. I would actually pick Manichaeism, Mandaeism, and Nag Hammadi Gnosticism to include if I were to choose just a few Gnostic religions to mention in this article.
Verdict: Mcvti's contributions look fine to me. These are basic facts mentioned in multiple existing articles and are not fringe theories, and they are also notable enough to mentioned. Nebulousquasar (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well its hardly a 'verdict' when the pair of you are active on articles about this particular sect. The one third party source I have found says that it is a minor sect - third party sources are what we use here. In the context of this article, each major religion gets a couple of lines and that we have for the Gnostics. We are not mentioning any of the sects - look at the one of Christianity, it doesn't even distinguish between Catholic and Protestant. You have to establis weight through citations and nothing in what you say above does that. -----Snowded TALK 18:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Snowded for keeping a close eye on this article and closely analyzing everything though, or otherwise these kinds of articles would be bombarded with random spurious or non-notable claims by barely mentioned minor historical sects, or small New Age fringe groups. However, Mandaeism is certainly not one of them. We're not talking about Martinism or Knight Templars here. Mandaeism is in no way a minor fringe sect, as "third-party" Protestant Christian scholars such as Edwin Yamauchi and many others clearly state. Another "third party": Even Islamic scholars have clearly listed Mandaeans among the People of the Book, a category that does not include the many hundreds of minor religious sects out there. Nebulousquasar (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I say the one third party (please note THIRD party) says it is a minor sect (not a fringe). Whatever it is a part of Gnosticism and doesn't deserve singling out. Each major religion gets a couple of lines. There is no reason to single out one Gnostic approach over the others. And by the way Mcvti has now broken the rule on canvassing by asking you to support him here -----Snowded TALK 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles.

  • On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
  • On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field

Copied from Wikipedia:Canvassing

WP:POVRAILROAD (Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing) Mcvti (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case - this article is about Knowledge not a Gnostic sect but it won't be me that makes the call. Please focus on trying to find an argument on source that satisfies the requirements of WP:WEIGHT -----Snowded TALK 19:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a compromise will be good. I don't want to take sides or get into edit wars. Although it might be great to expand the paragraph about Mandaeism, I think we should keep it as and not continue expanding it in order to make sure that we meet WP:WEIGHT requirements. Maybe a few more sentences about Manichaeism and Nag Hammadi Gnosticism can balance things out, and we shouldn't include unnecessary details about Mandaeism. Thanks for everyone's comments. Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An "additional citations" tag might be more relevant than the OR tag, but I'll leave that up to the other editors. Let's just leave it at here for now. Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I tagged rather than get into an edit war when Mcvti broke WP:BRD. I'm open to a descrition of Gnostic approaches to knowledge which is no longer than those for Islam and Christianity. -----Snowded TALK 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reset

This is the position as I understand it

  1. This article is about Knowledge and has a section showing how major religions have treated that subject. These are brief descriptions of a few sentences and none of the entries has included different sect positions - for example the differences between Aquinas and Agustine in Christianity are not mentioned event though they had major implications in the Western Intellectual Tradition. The Islam section does not talk about Sufi, Shi'a and Sunni perspectices.
  2. All of the references and statements given above relate to the etymology of the name of the religion and discussions about the significance of Mandaeism in the history of Gnisticism. All of that may be right (or otherwise if you believe Britanicca) but none of it is relevant here. Just because something is referenced doesn't mean that it is included
  3. The proposal is to expand the Gnositic section to include one sect, its not clear why and Manichæism is probably better known, but that is beside the poin: no other entry for any religion containts details about individual sects or perspectices
  4. No sources or material or argument has been advanced as to why the Gnostic section should be larger than for other religions or why different sects should be explicitly mentioned when they are not in the other entries

So - I have not disputed the addition of a section on Gnosticism but I am disputing giving privilege to one sect in that entry, and I am very dubious as to if any sect should be mentioned.

Per standard practice I have restored to the previous stable text to allow discussion takes place; the onus is on those proposing an addition to justify the new material. If we can't reach agreement then we call an RfC although this really is a minor issue but that is proper process, not edit warring.

Those who want to insert this material need to make a case about why a Gnostic sect deserves unique treatment in this article. I repeat, no other entry for more significant religions is treated in that way -----Snowded TALK 07:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time today for discussion, but I see a problem with the way the religions are listed. You have a Dharmic religion (Hinduisim), three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and Gnosticism which is not a religion by itself, but rather a type or category of religions, however no Gnostic religion(s) are listed. Mcvti (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution would be to either remove Gnosticism and add Mandaeism and perhaps Manichaeism instead as separate religions, or put Christianity, Islam and Judaism under Abrahamic religions and add Mandaeism and Manichaeism under Gnosticism. Hinduism would be under Indian (Dharmic) religions. Mcvti (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors would be open to rethinking it, but we need to remember that its not an article about religion, its about knowledge. The vast majority of readers will not really be aware of the 'three religions of the book' and anyway views on knowledge are not defined by origin. They will understand the major world religions listed there. The issue and test is significance to this article, not significance in the study of religion. We also need third party sources to establish significance and there we have an problem with giving any prominence to Mandaeanism. To quote in full from the Enclyopedia Britannica "Mandaeanism, (from Mandaean mandayya, “having knowledge”), ancient Middle Eastern religion still surviving in Iraq and Khuzistan (southwest Iran). The religion is usually treated as a Gnostic sect; it resembles Manichaeism in some respects. Whereas most scholars date the beginnings of Mandaeanism somewhere in the first three centuries AD, the matter of its origin is highly conjectural" -----Snowded TALK 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea could be to move the 'Religious concepts of knowledge' section into a separate article due its significance leaving this article to deal with the other aspects of knowledge. Mcvti (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth looking at as an option, it would need a few good third party sources to create a structure -----Snowded TALK 09:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

I removed the second sentence in the opening statement because it was a VERY DEEP philosophical statement that may be appropriate later in the article but doesn't really help elucidate the basic concept. Happy to discuss or be corrected. The statement might be appropriate later in the page, IMO. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of this article is currently in bad shape and needs a rewrite, in my view. @Phlsph7: You have done a lot of work on other epistemology articles, so would you be interested in taking a look at the lead section of this article and making revisions? @Snowded: You are the long-time top editor of this article and your input on revising the lead section would also be appreciated. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without access beyond the abstract of the source, I am not sure what to do with the sentence fragment, "Facts ... , skills ... , or objects ... contributing to ones understanding."
It might be as simple as changing "contributing" to "contribute", but it could also be something a bit different. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the cited source (Stephen R. Grimm's chapter "Understanding as Knowledge of Causes"), and I don't see why is cited there; that source is about the more specific topic summarized in its title. So I removed it. But part of the bigger problem that needs to be fixed, much more than the grammar, is that the definition of knowledge in the first sentence makes a number of philosophical assumptions about which there is not universal agreement, so the current definition is not nearly broad enough to encompass what follows, even just within the current lead section. For example, contrast the current lead sentence of this article ("Knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification") with some of the following passages from Barry Allen's article "Knowledge" from the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas that is reproduced on Encyclopedia.com:

Between Gettier-inspired concerns about the analysis of knowledge and the project of refuting the skeptic, epistemologists fell into two broad camps, depending on whether they considered knowledge to require an element of justification or understanding, or whether, contrary to tradition, true belief might be enough. The idea that knowledge requires only true belief, provided the cause of the belief is appropriate or reliable, is known as externalism. Such theories reject the traditional assumption that knowledge requires the knower to understand the reason why a belief is true. [...] [Later the topic changes from Gettier to knowledge and truth more generally:] Certainly there is some difference between knowing that the earth rotates around the sun (a true proposition) and knowing how to play the flute (a skill or art). But is the difference one in kinds of knowledge? What is obviously different about them is how the knowledge is expressed. In one case by producing a proposition, in the other by a musical performance. But that is a difference in the artifacts that express knowledge, and does not prove a difference in what makes these examples of knowledge at all. In both cases the knowledge concerns artifacts, constructions of ours, whether propositions or musical performances. [...] Heliocentric astronomy and musical artistry are therefore not so different as knowledge. Whether we speak of knowing that (such and such is true) or knowing how, we are qualifying capacities for performance at a certain high level with artifacts of some kind.

— Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 0684313774. OCLC 55800981.
Whether one agrees with Allen or not, the relevant point for the issue at hand is that this article's definition of knowledge as "a type of belief" is just one view (akin to internalism) that could and should be subsumed under a broader and more inclusive definition of knowledge that more closely approximates to a neutral point of view, whatever that may be. (I'm not implying that Allen's view is broad enough for Wikipedia; it's not, but it's an example of one way that the current first sentence is inadequate.) Biogeographist (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am on board with this. It really needs some work! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I restored an earlier version of the first paragraph as a better basis for future development. Biogeographist (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biogeographist and thanks for the heads-up. I agree that it's difficult to give a general definition of knowledge since there are many types of knowledge (like know-how vs know-that) and many theories about the essential characteristics of the different types. One way to do it would be to start not with a general definition but with the most well-known one, i.e. as justified true belief. For example, from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "According to the most widely accepted definition, knowledge is justified true belief". The definition can then be qualified in the next sentence by pointing out disagreements and alternatives. From what I can tell, there is very wide consensus that knowledge involves true belief. There is some disagreement about whether justification has to be involved instead of just reliability (reliabilism/externalism) and whether justified true belief is also a sufficient condition and not just a necessary one (Gettier). Phlsph7 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that many philosophers consider the definition of knowledge as justified true belief to be the standard definition for their purposes. Philosopher Barry Allen, whose article on Encyclopedia.com I cited above, is one of the vehement dissenters: "contrary to what is often said, the definition of knowledge as justified true belief is not in any sense 'classical'. It has never been widely accepted and first entered philosophical discussion (in Plato's Theaetetus) as a refuted theory."
Nevertheless, even if JTB is the standard definition of knowledge in philosophy, I agree with Snowded's comment below that this article is not (just) about knowledge in philosophy: the Epistemology article serves that purpose, and there is also the JTB section of Belief. So I would prefer to start with something more general than JTB. Biogeographist (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we have sources for a widely accepted more general definition then I'm with you. But if we have to piece this definition together ourselves then it is original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Probably the best source for a widely accepted general definition, before preceding to a summary of the article, is a dictionary like the OED. The first detailed definition in the OED that is not obsolete is: "II. The fact or condition of knowing something. 3. a. The fact of knowing or being acquainted with a thing, person, etc.; acquaintance; familiarity gained by experience." The usage examples for this definition in the OED are from a wide range of fields, so this seems to be the generalist definition. The current lead sentence of this article is pretty close to that, which is why I was comfortable restoring it from an earlier version. The next non-obsolete detailed definition in the OED is "4. b. The apprehension of fact or truth with the mind; clear and certain perception of fact or truth; the state or condition of knowing fact or truth." The usage examples in the OED for this definition are all or nearly all from philosophy, so this would be the standard philosophical definition.
Further definitions from the OED (omitting the obsolete ones): "4. c. With of. The fact or state of having a correct idea or understanding of something; the possession of information about something. Also with indefinite article; formerly also in plural. [...] e. Perception by means of the senses. [...] 5. a. The fact or state of knowing that something is the case; the condition of being aware or cognizant of a fact, state of affairs, etc. (expressed or implied); awareness, consciousness. [...] b. (A person's) range of mental perception; awareness; ken. [...] 6. a. Chiefly with of. The fact or condition of having acquired a practical understanding or command of, or competence or skill in, a particular subject, language, etc., esp. through instruction, study, or practice; skill or expertise acquired in a particular subject, etc., through learning. Frequently with indefinite article. Formerly also with †in or infinitive. [...] b. Without construction: the fact or condition of having become conversant with a body of facts, principles, methods, etc.; scholarship, learning, erudition. [...] III. The object of knowing; something known or made known. [...] 9. a. As a count noun. A thing which is or may be known; esp. a branch of learning; a science; an art. Usually in plural. [...] b. As a mass noun. That which is known; the sum of what is known. [...] d. Computing. Information in the form of facts, assumptions, and inference rules which can be accessed by a computer program (esp. an agent: see agent n. 5). Cf. knowledge base n." Biogeographist (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One difficulty with using dictionary definitions is that they just list many different meanings without putting them into relation to each other or assessing their general importance. This is also apparent from the length of you last edit, which just lists all the version from one dictionary. The current 1st sentence would not be my first choice but I agree with that it is not too terrible either. The right way to go about this would be to first rework the relevant parts of the article, specifically the section "Theories of knowledge", and then summarize the results in the lead. But this would be a rather time-consuming project. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that revising the body of the article first would be advisable. Barry Allen's article cited above (which is mostly a history) starts by discussing four Greek words that could be translated with the word "knowledge" (epistēmē, technē, mētis, and gnōsis), which shows, like the OED definitions above, that the word "knowledge" does a lot of work in English. The SEP article on epistemology, for example, also notes this: "the English word 'knowledge' lumps together various states that are distinguished in other languages". I think it may be possible to identify a core that all the meanings have in common; for example, I like how the SEP article on epistemology describes the common core as "cognitive success": "epistemology seeks to understand one or another kind of cognitive success (or, correspondingly, cognitive failure). This entry surveys the varieties of cognitive success, and some recent efforts to understand some of those varieties." Reviewing the OED definitions of knowledge above, I don't think any of them could not be characterized as a kind of cognitive success. (I bet even Barry Allen could get on board with the "cognitive success" view, as long as cognition were conceived broadly enough, as in 4E cognition.) Biogeographist (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of cognitive success as a common element could be included in the lead, for example, in the 2nd lead paragraph, which talks about the different forms of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur: give JTB in lede sentence and qualify later or in the appropriate section on propositional knowledge. This discussion began with my WP:Bold rewrite of the lede to make it so, and I later added relational knowledge as the second sentence, since the previous lede sentence that I replaced had emphasized familiarity. Also could mention practical knowledge and productive knowledge; order is negotiable.
Here was my proposed lede, using the platonic and aristotelian method of definition by diaresis:
Knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. Knowledge is a type of relationship distinct from mere acquaintance by virtue of familiarity, intimacy, or friendship. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is elegant and sounds great and is better than the lead we have currently. +1 Mvbaron (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to make this more clear: I support replacing the first sentence of the current lede with the proposed sentence. The rest would stay as is) Mvbaron (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggested first sentence is good, but I also agree with Biogeographist and Snowded that we have to take alternative definitions seriously. One way would be to qualify the first sentence, something like "According to the most widely accepted definition, knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification". An alternative would be to mention disagreements or alternative definitions in the next sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I was one of the editors who reverted the proposed change, and I find it far from "elegant" as Mvbaron called it. Restating the proposal without any engagement with the objections does not make the proposal more convincing! As I said above, the proposed first sentence is inadequate because it is not general enough; as philosopher Barry Allen said in the Encyclopedia.com article quoted above, JTB "has never been widely accepted" as a definition of knowledge. The proposed second sentence is inadequate because it's not true that knowledge is "distinct from mere acquaintance": the OED, one of the English language's best dictionaries, uses the terms familiarity and acquaintance in the same definition, and the OED also says that the use of knowledge to refer to sexual intercourse is rare, and its use to refer to friendship is obsolete. We can do better than this proposal, and I would hope much better. Biogeographist (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suggested reverting the proposed change for the same reasons as Biogeographist. We need a more general opening . The current state of the opening is superior in my opinion than what we had (which is what the proposal is). Alex Jackl (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been a problematic article as its not a pure philosophy one, it has overlaps with both common use and managerial use and that's before we get to the frequent problems on religious knowledge and some of the 'get to philosophy' gamers. So while JTB will be known to all philosophy under graduates (largely to dismiss it and move on) we probably need a lede that reflects that ambiguity -----Snowded TALK 07:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'thought experiments' by Edmund Gettier

In the following sentence in this article: "These controversies intensified due to a series of thought experiments by Edmund Gettier and have provoked various alternative definitions." The hyperlink given to 'thought experiments' which is this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment has nothing to do with Gettier or Edmund Gettier. It is a wrong linkage between these 2 topics or article. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mojtaba Mohammadi and thanks for pointing this out. Strictly speaking, it is not an error since Gettier's thought experiments are one type of thought experiment among many others and the linked article is on thought experiments in general. However, there is a more relevant link target available: Gettier problem#Gettier's two original counterexamples. I'll go ahead and replace the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. In my personal opinion, Gettier's 'thought experiments' is or let's say are relevant to 'thought experiments' but not to that page as that page was very niche and specialized to Gedankenexperiment, unless we have some reference to what Gettier is into in that page. I, personally went to that page hoping that I will gain some more knowledge about Gettier or related topic ... but unsuccessful. Thank you for your quick action and the new link is an excellent choice, as it keeps philosophical topics within the same domain or collection of articles. Thanks again a million for the change. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the Lead

I did not remove anything from the lead but the second paragraph needs a lot of citations. It looks a little like Original Work. I added a more general common language definition at the start of the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) :The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and sources aren't required in the lead, provided the lead accurately summarizes content in the body, which is itself supported by adequate sources. Neither the original lead, nor the newly proposed lead provide any sources, nor is it clear to me whether either is an accurate summary of well sourced content in the body, so both might be objected to on OR grounds. Paul August ☎
Hello Alex Jackl and thanks for trying to improve the lead. I reverted your edit since it seems to mainly repeat information already present in the lead and has some linguistic issues. The lead section of this article only summarizes sourced information from the body of the article. In such cases, the sources do not need to be cited again in the lead, see WP:CITELEAD. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems Paul August was faster than me on this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate what you said Paul August but I had indeed discussed it on the talk page. Indeed the last time it came up more people were opposed to the current opening. I am going to revert it back again and we should discuss here. If you look up at the prior conversation there was NOT a consensus. Also this is a fairly broad topic and the current content of the lead takes a particular cut on it that may not represent the generality well at all. All I am suggesting is opening with amore general layman's definition and then work to the deeper conversations. This also- as far as I can tell- represents the consensus we reached months ago about this. I think people should weigh in on this. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier discussion you mention was not about the lead as a whole but only the opening statement. The main question was whether the lead should start with a general characterization or with the justified-true-belief account. In its current version, it starts with the general characterization and gives the justified-true-belief characterization in the second sentence, which seems to be a good compromise. As I see it, the current first sentence is not perfect, but it has some good qualities: it is succinct and manages to introduce the topic by mentioning the three types of knowledge (propositional, practical, by acquaintance) mainly discussed in the academic literature. I think this approach is in principle a good idea but I'm open to reformulation suggestions. However, having both this characterization and yours is repetitive and therefore not a good idea. Another point is the linguistic issue already mentioned with your suggestion.
What do you think of the following as a replacement of the current first sentence? Knowledge can be defined as theoretical awareness of facts or as practical skills. It may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations. It's based on your suggestion but makes a few adjustment. Besides some streamlining of expressions, it leaves the repeated reference to experience out, which seems to me not central to the definition of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who was involved in the previous discussion above and who carefully inspected Phlsph7's edits to the lead section and article body after that discussion, I agree with Phlsph7's summary of the situation, and I think Phlsph7's edits respected the consensus in the previous discussion. The current first sentence is already the more general characterization; it seems to do an adequate job of summarizing the major OED definitions in the earlier discussion above, although any proposed improvements are welcome. I don't think Phlsph7's suggested replacement is an improvement, since it narrows the scope of the first sentence; any change should keep the scope of the first sentence at least as broad as it currently is. Biogeographist (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay- I will wait for any other opinions. I believe the opening statement to be FAR TOO ABSTRACT. Wikipedia is not an academic paper- it is too provide encyclopedic overviews of topics and then dive deeper in the body of the article, however, that being said I bow to the current consensus. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was intended as a compromise. But I'm also fine with keeping things as they are. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer your suggestion to the current state - so if that is good let's go with that. Thanks Phlsph7! Alex Jackl (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knowledge&oldid=1104553600"