|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Epistemology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Epistemology has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Epistemology was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of epistemology, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
disambiguation from some obscure Norwegian death metal band? really?
Do we really need the ludicrous italicized disambiguation (for which, read "shameless advert") from an obscure album of an obscure Norwegian "melodic" death metal band?
Hang it: I decree that we don't. It's coming out. I hope there won't be too many confused Norwegian death metal aficionados wondering what all this chat about philosophy is about, but I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually. ElectricRay (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The irrationality section should be deleted, it has little to do with the current epistemological literature. It is POV.
“ It is common for epistemological theories to avoid skepticism by adopting a foundationalist approach. To do this, they argue that certain types of statements have a special epistemological status — that of not needing to be justified. So it is possible to classify epistemological theories according to the type of statement that each argues has this special status.”
- I deleted this because it is an inadequate introduction to the following section which doesn’t mainly concern types of foundationalism and the beliefs they identify as primary.
“or positivism, which places higher emphasis on ideas about reality rather than on experiences of reality.”
- Deleted because Postivists who place primary emphasis on experience, that’s what verificationism is about after all.
“The central problem for epistemology then becomes explaining this correspondence.”
- Deleted, not everyone supports the correspondence view of truth. The central problem of epistemology is standardly viewed as the problem of the meaning and possibility of knowledge.
- Deleted because coherentists usually support the “Scientific method”. The debate between foundationalism and coherentism little concerns the validity of the scientific method.
“Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute "real" knowledge (as David Hume argued).”
- Deleted because it’s inaccurate. Historically it’s safe to say that most empricists have believed that logical and mathematical knowledge ( especially logical knowledge) are knowable a-priori.
“Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are held to be true without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements.”
-The section on idealism is inaccurate. This was particularly inaccurate. It was deleted because beliefs about the status of mathematical and logical knowledge vary from idealist to idealist, the views described above ( which are, by the way, poorly phrased) are not held by all idealists.
“The opposite theory to this is solipsism.”
- Deleted because it is (a) confusing and unnecessary (b) not necessarily accurate ( c) simplistic. The whole section on naive realism looks suspicious to me.
- The section on Pragmatism should be deleted or expanded because there are “as many pragmatisms as there are pragmatists”. Between the Neo-Pragmatism of Rorty and the Pragmatism of Quine there is little common ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-25 10:50:55 (UTC)
- The section on the "Galaxy Theory" should be deleted. It is a fringe view of one author. But it occupies a huge space in the main article on epistemology. There are dozens of epistemologists whose work is far more influential.
Semantic Attack Some (e.g. Hirsch) claim that Gettier was sloppy in his definition of justification. Gettier siletly assumes, that belief can be justified by belief. He accepts Smith's proposation "the one who gets the job will have ten cents in his pocket" as justified just because it turns out to be true, which is of course tautological. Then he debunks that contrived wrong case. The belief about the ten cents was in truth not justified, because it was based on [i]yet another[/i] belief - that Jones would get the job. That belief turned out to be wrong, therefore the belief aubout the ten cents was [i]not[/i] justified.
Smith's proposItion, not proposAtion
italic command failed
Internalism/Externalism on Descartes
Considering that a link already exists to the Internalism/Externalism page, and that Descartes is only peripherally relevant to the Internalism/Externalism debate, I would recommend either cutting the paragraph, or reducing it to a very few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedenko (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 September 2009
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)
I think "poorly justified true beliefs" should have a circle around it. As shown the diagram implies that "knowledge" is a subset of "poorly justified true beliefs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)