Talk:Epistemology

Deletions

The irrationality section should be deleted, it has little to do with the current epistemological literature. It is POV.

“ It is common for epistemological theories to avoid skepticism by adopting a foundationalist approach. To do this, they argue that certain types of statements have a special epistemological status — that of not needing to be justified. So it is possible to classify epistemological theories according to the type of statement that each argues has this special status.”

- I deleted this because it is an inadequate introduction to the following section which doesn’t mainly concern types of foundationalism and the beliefs they identify as primary.

“or positivism, which places higher emphasis on ideas about reality rather than on experiences of reality.”

- Deleted because Postivists who place primary emphasis on experience, that’s what verificationism is about after all.

“The central problem for epistemology then becomes explaining this correspondence.”

- Deleted, not everyone supports the correspondence view of truth. The central problem of epistemology is standardly viewed as the problem of the meaning and possibility of knowledge.

“The Scientific Method was once favoured as the reason for scientific success, but recent difficulties in the philosophy of science have led to a rise in coherentism.”

- Deleted because coherentists usually support the “Scientific method”. The debate between foundationalism and coherentism little concerns the validity of the scientific method.

“Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute "real" knowledge (as David Hume argued).”

- Deleted because it’s inaccurate. Historically it’s safe to say that most empricists have believed that logical and mathematical knowledge ( especially logical knowledge) are knowable a-priori.

“Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are held to be true without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements.”

-The section on idealism is inaccurate. This was particularly inaccurate. It was deleted because beliefs about the status of mathematical and logical knowledge vary from idealist to idealist, the views described above ( which are, by the way, poorly phrased) are not held by all idealists.

“The opposite theory to this is solipsism.”

- Deleted because it is (a) confusing and unnecessary (b) not necessarily accurate ( c) simplistic. The whole section on naive realism looks suspicious to me.

- The section on Pragmatism should be deleted or expanded because there are “as many pragmatisms as there are pragmatists”. Between the Neo-Pragmatism of Rorty and the Pragmatism of Quine there is little common ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.173.165 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-25 10:50:55 (UTC)

- The section on the "Galaxy Theory" should be deleted. It is a fringe view of one author. But it occupies a huge space in the main article on epistemology. There are dozens of epistemologists whose work is far more influential.

Typo

Semantic Attack Some (e.g. Hirsch) claim that Gettier was sloppy in his definition of justification. Gettier siletly assumes, that belief can be justified by belief. He accepts Smith's proposation "the one who gets the job will have ten cents in his pocket" as justified just because it turns out to be true, which is of course tautological. Then he debunks that contrived wrong case. The belief about the ten cents was in truth not justified, because it was based on [i]yet another[/i] belief - that Jones would get the job. That belief turned out to be wrong, therefore the belief aubout the ten cents was [i]not[/i] justified.

sileNtly?

Smith's proposItion, not proposAtion

italic command failed

Suggestion: "Then Hirsch debunks...", instead of "Then he debunks..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.49.56 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 December 2006

Internalism/Externalism on Descartes

Considering that a link already exists to the Internalism/Externalism page, and that Descartes is only peripherally relevant to the Internalism/Externalism debate, I would recommend either cutting the paragraph, or reducing it to a very few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedenko (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 September 2009

content from "Knowledge that, knowledge how, and knowledge by acquaintance"

"N.B. some languages related to English have been said to retain these verbs, e.g. Scots: "wit" and "ken"." This is not relevant to the argument. Scots say, "I donna (do not) ken" for both knowing a person or knowing a fact. "I donna ken him," or "I donna ken what time it is." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekpie (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Proposed merge with Epistemics

There is not enough data in the epistemics article, it seems to be just a specific application of epistemology. Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

From the article,

Epistemics is to be distinguished from epistemology in that epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, whereas epistemics signifies the scientific study of knowledge. Epistemics is also compared to cognitive science.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

While we need a citation to confirm that, that statement seems to contradict the idea that it's "just a specific application". So I'm not convinced that merging makes sense. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"What makes justified beliefs justified?" quote correction - proposal for an additional edit

While the quote is cited, therefore stated, is not copied from the cited resource, therefore could be improved.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

My proposal would be: "What makes beliefs justified?"

This is a Wikipedia Talk-page discussion comment, not a personal opinion.

It would imply better writing style as in clarification by not using two same words in the same sentence. Acosix (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acosix (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 

Nomination of Portal:Epistemology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Epistemology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Epistemology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like wikipedia is being trolled. Delete Portal of Epistemology? Erm, okay, give in to the trolls. lol.