Talk:Internalism and externalism
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Linguistics||(Rated C-class)|
I don't have any idea which philosophical topic should get top billing on this page. I think the epistemological sense is the newest, and the moral sense is the oldest, and I know very little about the debate in philosophy of mind. The other scale we could use is how popular the terms are in these disciplines, but I have no idea how to determine that information. So, the current arrangement is arbitrary, and if you have a good reason for changing it, go right ahead. MRC
These need to be moved to internalism and externalism (epistemology), internalism and externalism (philosophy of language, etc. (note, isms are not capitalized in philosophical writing, generally speaking).
Actually, though, I think there should be separate articles for each: internalism (epistemology), etc. I don't think it matters very much whether the meat of the discussion of debates between internalists and externalists of various stripes should go, whether on an "i and e" page jointly, or instead separately--but I do think we should have separate articles in any case. --Larry_Sanger
Fine, but I made these pages before we could use () in page titles, so this was better than the alternitives at the time. Mark Christensen
From the article: "One strand of externalism is reliabilism" I have to question this. It seems that some people think reliabilism could be used with internalism. Surely we shouldn't call it a "strand" of externalism? --General Wesc
- I've moved this page in line with WP naming policy. ---- Charles Stewart 08:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the definition of semantic externalism. Aside from being not uncontroversial, the definitions of (linguistic) internalism and externalism aren't obviously mutually exclusive; one might take it that 'meaning' is determined by what language users know, and that the relevant knowledge states are individuated by environmental factors, and hence come out as both internalist and externalist! this could result if, for example, one took the relevant knowledge states are propositional attitudes, and what prop attitudes are available to a thinker is environmentally determined. Now, one could get into an argument about what knowledge states it is that have a role in meaning individuation, but it's seems to me to be better to define externalism as the claim that what concepts are available to a thinker/what words mean is determined by environmental factors (broadly construed), and internalism as the denial of externalism. --126.96.36.199 1 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
Some explanation about particular types of internalism would be helpful. i.e. Perspective internalism, and accessibility internalism à la Alston. This may favour spitting the article into two. - Alexis Morcrette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Externalism or Internalism
The text goes: "Whereas externalism about justification is a widely endorsed view, there are few defenders of externalism about knowledge thanks in no small part to Edmund Gettier and Gettier-examples.." <-- did the author actually "few defenders of internalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that this elucidates nothing for anyone who doesn't already know what both Internalism and Externalism are, making this article entirely pointless.
"Recently" is a very non-specific term. Is it "recently" as in this month, this year, this decade, this century, ... ? Will it still be "recently" in ten years' time? In a century's time?
Hopefully by then someone will have done something about those three huge impenetrable paragraphs in the middle of the article.
--220.127.116.11 07:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
there is a seperate article called 'semantic externalism'. it is stubbish and the work of one anonymous user, and obviously it is redundant considering that the information exists in some form here. On the other hand, it is probably a mistake to delete it if people are still trying to seperate this article into seperate entries (one of which would no doubt be 'semantic externalism'.) Is this still something that people are working on?
semantic externalism pt. 2
No has responded to the comment above (which I realize I forgot to sign. whoops) so I have gone ahead and started rehabbing the 'semantic externalism' article, and have linked to it from here. It is still pretty much a stub, but there you have it.
Is anyone working on epistemological externalism/internalism? They clearly deserve their own page beyond this one, but I am not qualified to start one.
Ncsaint 04:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am currently working on an internalism treatiuse which would, for the most part, be classified as epistemological. Interestingly, it does not overtly contradict externalist viewpoints as much of the thesis involves how one develops beliefs based on interpretation and perception of external phenomena. (I've put some of this a seperate section below.)
--Darkchanter 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Seperate Internalism and Externalism?
It occurs to me that these viewpoints might well be compatable instead of opposing, especially when it comes to environmental influences and justification of beliefs. My argument is that the extent of the effect environment on a thinking subject depends on the psychological maturity of that person.
--Darkchanter 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Externalism about knowledge
It is not exactly clear in the article why 'justified true belief' is a wholly internalist position (this is implied). It would seem that the requirement of truth is dependent on the state of reality and not on internal evidence, and as such that that sort of externalism is fairly uncontroversial. I'm not an expert on this matter but it seems confused from the pov of a reader.
Stdbrouw 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Origin of Problem
Hey, I was surprised to not see any mention of David Malet Armstrong in this article. Didn't he discover this philosophical problem or am I mistaken? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Bernard Williams -I am intrigued and will try to find out more and update this article if needs be. Teetotaler 7 January, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)