![]() | 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Changes to the article
[edit]I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has 12 unreferenced paragraphs and the following maintenance tags: 1x More citations needed, 3x clarification needed, 1x page needed, 1x citation needed, 1x dead link.
The article has an odd structure. It has a section dedicated to schools of thought but many schools of thought have their own subsections elsewhere, like internalism, virtue epistemology, and foundationalism. Knowledge is defined first in the subsection "Knowledge" and later in the section "Defining knowledge". Redundancies are also a problem in the two separate subsections dedicated to the apriori-aposteriori distinction and the discussion of skepticism first in the subsection "Skepticism" and later the section "Epistemological concepts in past philosophies". The section "Schools of thought" has too many subsections, some of which are quite short. It would probably be better to only use separate subsections for the most important traditions and merge the remaining subsections. The definition of epistemology should be discussed somewhere in the body of the article so that the lead can summarize it rather than present information not found in the body of the article.
The article has some historical information but it lacks a structured discussion of the history of epistemology regarding the main positions in ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophy. The pieces that are already there could probably be included in a more organized presentation as parts. Various important topics are also missing from the rest of the article or are only alluded to, such as applied epistemology, evidentialism, fallibilism, contrastivism, epistemology of religion, and moral epistemology. It also wouldn't hurt to mention the problem of knowledge of other minds and the problem of induction somewhere. The article is already quite long so some of the current contents would need to be summarize to keep the length managable. There is a lengthy paragraph on words for knowledge in other languages that could probably be removed and getting rid of some redundancies would also help reduce length.
Various smaller adjustments are needed but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article should explain the context of its subject, modern epistemology, in a more fundamental manner, not only as an afterthought, in particular, not only in a history section at the end. As a starting point and always in the background thereafter, the article should have a critical explanation or analysis of the approach taken by modern epistemology so that the readers can appreciate the subject from a neutral point of view. Modern epistemology is the epistemology that started more or less with the Gettier problem, at the least as a social phenomena. This subject exists in a larger background. For example, this modern epistemology is not seen in the direction that "epistemology" took in the French culture. The complain is not that there is not enough space attributed to French Epistemology or to Epistemology as seen in Popper's work and some of his students that criticized him, etc. On the contrary, that would have the opposite effect of claiming indirectly in an uncritical manner that modern epistemology somehow covers all these subjects and that they only deserve some sections in the article, as if they are not more interesting than that within this big subject. This is a pretentious position that is acceptable when coming from many modern epistemologists, but is not acceptable within Wikipedia. What is needed is a more focused article, but an article that at the same time explains more its own context. The other approaches, French epistemology, Popper's epistemology without a knowing subject, etc. should only be mentioned to help that and only if it helps, not as a way to pretend that the article covers a big subject that includes them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this point. I'm aware that this was the topic of some of our previous discussions and I intend to keep it in mind as I tackle the other sections. I plan to add more explicit information on the historical context when I get to the subsection "Historical epistemology" and I hope to include a short mention of this in the lead after the other points have been addressed. Ideally, the article's main subject should not be limited to new topics that have come into focus since Gettier's counterexamples but encompass epistemology in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- A Wikipedian might have a sincere vision of a general article, but actually he has a good vision that is focused on a nice topic that is well sourced and unified in the literature, including debates within that topic: unified does not mean a single point of view without debates.[note 1] In that case, he may actually write an article that is well sourced and would be a nice article except for the fact that it is presented as a "general article" and fail to describe its own context properly and thus conflict with other views and violate NPOV while not going as deep as it should on its actual topic.[note 2]
- The notion of "in general" is fundamentally problematic when the overall literature on the given "topic" is fundamentally divided in different approaches or cultures. Otherwise, we simply pick a few reliable sources that represent the overall topic, understand them and write a nice GA article. But, this unity does not exists for most kind of knowledge. I don't see it for Epistemology. Scientific knowledge seems to be an exception, but not philosophical knowledge. It's very tempting to try to write a "general article" and to even see it as the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, but there is no basis to do it correctly. It will rely heavily on our ability to step back and gain a vision that, by definition, no universally reliable and notorious source ever had before. For this reason, it is very hard to write a general article without violating NOR or NPOV. For example, the criteria used to determine relevancy is likely to reflect the point of view of one part of this non unified literature and there will be a violation of NPOV. Worst, the criteria will be our own invention and it will be hard to justify it without violating NOR. Even if we succeed, the article will itself be divided with parts not well linked as it is the case in the sources that represent the overall literature. In other words, not much will be gained in terms of organization and it will not correspond to any ultimate goal.[note 3]
- Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are right that writing an article on epistemology is a challenging task. The dangers of NPOV and NOR are real and one has to be careful to avoid them. It would be great to write the "globally the best representation" of the topic but I have doubts that we'll reach that level. To get started, I have the more modest goal of fixing the specific issues mentioned above. I don't know whether the article will be ready for GA once they have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- But, there is a "simple" solution: boldly and transparently have the article focus on the view of post Gettier epistemology. This would allow a nice and well focused article. This is not a POV-fork, because within the debates there are criticisms. The article could even mention other views, such as the Popperian view, but in relation to the subject, if it is verifiable in sources. The fact that these other views only have small sections or are only mentioned as needed while explaining the main topic will be natural and not a violation of NPOV. This would allow to go much more deeply within the subject and will create a much more useful article that will contribute nicely to a good global organization of Wikipedia.
- I put "simple" in quotation marks, because it require to resist the temptation to blindly do as is done outside Wikipedia by experts that believe they cover the totality of epistemology, but this is a standard requirement of NPOV: describe debates instead of engage them. We must take a perspective and not simply state what the sources say as if it was Wikipedia's position. It is difficult to do that in a nice way.
- My angle would be to take what is claimed as the central tenets of epistemology as opinions of key contemporary epistemologists. The idea is to describe these tenets and their context instead of presenting them as universal tenets of epistemology since all times. I agree it's not easy, but the basic idea is simple: make sure the the basic view points, the approaches taken, etc. all these things that cannot be justified, but are the starting points in contemporary epistemology, are identified and described for what they are, not universal concepts of epistemology that exists in the absolute since all times, but what is accepted in contemporary epistemology and give its direction, that is, constitute the basis on which it unfold. In particular, attempts to present these tenets as universal by making links with Plato, etc. must be attributed to contemporary epistemologists and not presented as truths. The key point here is that it must be apparent that there is no implicit claim of "universality" by Wikipedia, because this is what allows to avoid a violation of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we are trying to say the same things with different words. Wikipedia articles should be in tune with contemporary scholarship. Contemporary scholarship on epistemology has been influenced by Gettier, so that would be accounted for. Despite the focus on standard views, the article should also mention non-standard views without giving them too much weight.
- Short comment on some of your other remarks below: comparisons with the French article are dangerous since the meaning of épistémologie in French is more closely associated with philosophy of science and therefore not exactly the same as the meaning of epistemology in English, see [1]. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, the French article has a different orientation than the English article, but yet both claim to be general and both use the same history, the same ancient philosophies, to claim their generality. My argument still hold perfectly. The fact that they have completely different orientations and yet both claim generality is an essential part of the argument, not something that undermines it. Both need to better describe their specific context and not claim generality in order to avoid a violation of NPOV.
- Thank you for removing the etymological statement from the introductory summary, but it only illustrates the general point. The entire article must be reviewed, not to dramatically change the content, which is essentially already post Gettier epistemology, but to add more context so the content does not appear as universal truth about epistemology, but as something that unfolded within a context, which needs to be better explained. When the article presents history, it is a history viewed within that context. Even that history should not be presented as universal. This issue is not limited to history. Just like in the French article, many sections are added in the article to support the idea that the article is general. Yet, despite these added sections, the article still have a global emphasis on a study of knowledge as justified true belief and on the questions that this raises. This emphasis is hard to accept in such a vague and large context.
- Your sentence
Wikipedia articles should be in tune with contemporary scholarship. Contemporary scholarship on epistemology has been influenced by Gettier, so that would be accounted for
suggests there is no violation of NPOV, because the emphasis on JTB exists in the sources, but I am not complaining about this emphasis or about WP:Proportion per se. The issue is that the article should not present any content as universal truth, but describe and explain the context instead. I mention the emphasis on JTB, because without an explanatory context, it is hard for many to accept the emphasis on JTB. This is exactly why NPOV requires that we describe the view points without presenting them as truth, without taking sides. The goal is that the view point becomes more universal, more neutral, i.e., respects a neutral point of view. This requires more than adopting an impartial tone. I don't know how to describe a view point in a way that achieves the goal without providing an explanatory context.[note 4] This is not opposed to verifiability and NOR, but is a requirement that goes beyond these rules. To respect it, it is necessary but not sufficient tobe in tune with contemporary scholarship
. It also requires that we actively search for the relevant information that provides that context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- Concerning universal claims, I guess it depends how widely accepted the claim in question is in the relevant scholarship. Widely accepted claims can be stated in wikivoice. Others need to be qualified or attributed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Points of view are not always claims. If I stand in front a lake, I am taking that point of view, but I am not making any claim in doing so. Similarly, in science, if particular technologies, etc. are considered, a point of view is taken, but no claim is being made in doing so. If an approach is used in epistemology, no claim is made, but that is part of a point of view. This is the kind of contexts that needs to be given. Besides, I already pointed out what you said and responded to it in a footnote.[note 4] Also, I am not talking about attributions. The text of NPOV emphasises attribution of points of view, even points of view of a majority, but I am being more flexible and I consider that the key point is to provide the context and an attribution is often not the right way to do so. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Concerning universal claims, I guess it depends how widely accepted the claim in question is in the relevant scholarship. Widely accepted claims can be stated in wikivoice. Others need to be qualified or attributed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are right that writing an article on epistemology is a challenging task. The dangers of NPOV and NOR are real and one has to be careful to avoid them. It would be great to write the "globally the best representation" of the topic but I have doubts that we'll reach that level. To get started, I have the more modest goal of fixing the specific issues mentioned above. I don't know whether the article will be ready for GA once they have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this point. I'm aware that this was the topic of some of our previous discussions and I intend to keep it in mind as I tackle the other sections. I plan to add more explicit information on the historical context when I get to the subsection "Historical epistemology" and I hope to include a short mention of this in the lead after the other points have been addressed. Ideally, the article's main subject should not be limited to new topics that have come into focus since Gettier's counterexamples but encompass epistemology in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Debates require a shared background. So, sources that refer directly or even indirectly to each other and form a debate are unified by this shared background that is behind the debate. The debates in the Vienna circle and those in post Gettier epistemology are good examples.
- ^ I am, of course, entirely with you on the goal of having a global picture of epistemology, but this is a goal that must be achieved in the literature first and the best way Wikipedia can help achieving that goal is to be globally the best representation of the current state of the art in this literature and a single general article in epistemology will either be boring or deviate from that intermediary goal.
- ^ The biggest enemy here is the belief that picking a few reliable sources is a solution to this problem. I am not saying that it is impossible to have a collection of sources that represent the overall literature. I am only saying that, even if we succeed to agree on such a collection, which is not obvious, and then agree on the proper weight for each part, which is also not obvious, because many factors such as relevancy, etc. must be considered, that will not make a nice article.
- ^ a b In the case of scientific knowledge or any knowledge for which the explanatory context is obvious (in the case of science, its existence and the path to learn it is obvious), there is no need to provide this context. But, in philosophy, this context is not obvious at all and must be provided.
Etymology used to present a point of view
[edit] Issue was addressed by a simple removal of the statement
|
---|
This illustrates the general issue discussed in the previous section. Indirectly, through an etymological statement, the article presents a specific view on today's epistemology and on ancient Greek knowledge as being a universal view. The French version fr:Épistémologie uses a similar approach, but with their own adapted etymological view in which "episteme" refers to science: which translates as
The etymological statement in the article, as does the above statement in the French version, misrepresents ancient Greek knowledge to give a false impression that the article is universal and cover a general topic. To my knowledge, there is no universal view on the ancient Greek meaning of "episteme", but the most accepted view among scholars is that it is a knowledge accompanied with a techne, a skill. It is not useful to enter into the details. The point is that the etymological statement in the article (and also in the French version, but to support their own different approach) serves only the purpose of claiming that the article is a general article, but in doing so it relies on a simplistic view of the knowledge in ancient Greek: the skill could be a skill to govern a country, a skill in discourse or a craft. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
Rationality of belief while claiming a general article
[edit]There is nothing wrong in a topic that view belief as a central aspect of knowledge. The problem is that this is done while the article claims to cover epistemology in general. Belief is certainly a central aspect of contemporary post Gettier epistemology, which is dominant in the English literature that cover epistemology. If this dominant view was clearly presented as the subject of the article, this emphasis on belief would be fine. But belief is totally rejected as being an aspect of knowledge in many other views on epistemology. To some, belief and knowledge belong in entirely different categories: knowledge is not a belief that respects extra conditions such as truth. In particular, to some, such as the Popperians, scientific knowledge cannot even be true or false. Once you have a theory, then in the context of that theory, a statement can be true or false, but, in general, a theory by itself cannot, except in an idealistic manner, be true or false. Insisting on it, would create an infinite regress. This infinite regress fact is described as skepticism in post Gettier epistemology, but that is their biased view on knowledge. This fact has nothing to do with skepticism, because it is not at all a doubt on knowledge. It is only a way to point toward a stronger and more practical view on knowledge.[note 1] Another way of looking at this is noticing that fr:Épistémologie also claims to be general and to even cover Post Gettier epistemology, but yet the article almost never mention "belief" ("croyance"). The exceptions are a small section about post Gettier epistemology, a small section on the problem of induction (beliefs cannot be justified as truth) or to refer to wrong beliefs of philosophers, not as as a component of knowledge, in a historical perspective on epistemology. Again, this illustrates a key point made in a comment within the section #Changes to the article : the criteria used to determine relevancy is likely to reflect the point of view of one part of this non unified literature and there will be a violation of NPOV.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Interestingly, this was also Descartes' approach. His skepticism was a way to bring a stronger conviction about some foundation, which was a key ingredient in his argument regarding God. But, of course, Popper was not arguing for the existence of God. The only point in common is that they used "skepticism" (Popper did not call it that way and perhaps neither Descartes did) to argue for a different view on knowledge.
Section Related fields: Epistemology is compared to scientific domains
[edit]The section Related fields correctly points out that a study of how to evaluate beliefs (their justification, etc.) is a central aspect of the contemporary field of epistemology, which unfolded in relation to the problem of Gettier. Unfortunately, because no context is provided to explain this particular view on the study of knowledge, it appears, in Wikipedia's voice, as a universal approach for a study of knowledge. More precisely In particular, the section presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology. Instead of presenting this point of view in Wikipedia's voice, the article should very early refers to sources that give the context for this form of naturalized epistemology. It is naturalized in the sense that cognitive science or psychology is claimed to provide the background, the notion of belief, on which it relies: epistemology formulates questions that are expected to be meaningful in that background. It is also naturalized in the sense that it borrows the notion of truth and some aspects of justifications from logic. This hope that we can borrow these notions from logic to analyse knowledge in general is very far from being a universal point of view. It is only the point of departure of post Gettier Epistemology (though it unfolded progressively before Gettier, in particular with Russell). Presenting this approach as if it stands by itself as the most natural approach to knowledge is a violation of NPOV. The fact that this POV is the point of view of a majority in the English culture does not mean that it can be presented as if it was not a point of view and the only way to correctly look at knowledge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. You say that the section "Related fields" violates NPOV because it presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology. The first paragraph of this section talks about psychology, so I presume that you are referring to it. I'm not sure which specific passage you mean. Could you quote it? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you have not understood the main point. It is not about a sentence in particular. It is about the role of the overall section in the article. For the purpose of the current discussion, i.e, to understand the point I try to make, it is useful to distinguish between the two following things:
- The subject of knowledge in general as more or less defined by ancient philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, Russell to name a few (thereafter named "the general philosophical study of knowledge").
- Epistemology as viewed by a majority of academics in the English culture (thereafter named "contemporary epistemology").
- When we accept that these two things are different things, then the issue is easy to describe. The issue is that the second view is presented as being essentially the same thing as the contemporary version of the first view, despite the fact that it is a very specific naturalized view that focuses on belief as a background for its analysis and considers truth and justification (or warrant) as two essential ingredients (borrowed or inspired by logic) in this analysis. This means that the section violates NPOV, not by what it says, certainly not by a particular sentence, but by what it fails to say: it fails to situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge.
- There would be no NPOV problem with that section if the article clearly situated (in the lead and elsewhere) its subject, contemporary epistemology, with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge. The fact that the section relates contemporary epistemology with non philosophical fields only (psychology, logic, education, decision theory and anthropology) and perhaps in this way wants to remove any philosophical connotation, would not be a NPOV issue if that restricted context was clearly explained in the article. Though, there might still be an issue if the entire section is seen as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice for the absence of philosophical connotation.
- As a final parenthetical note, which might help provide a perspective, I mention that since science began in the 19th century to separate itself from philosophy and proved itself much more practical than philosophy per se, most philosophers claimed that their philosophy was scientific (but there are exceptions, a notorious one being Popper). This claim to scientificality was even seen in the German idealists who were trying to unify science and metaphysical, even religious, concepts. Progressively, it became important, not only to be scientific, but to avoid any metaphysical connotation. This was particularly noticeable in the Vienna circle in the first part of the 20th century. (Popper distanced himself from the circle by taking the angle that we cannot avoid metaphysical concepts and must even welcome them, but be critical about them.) We are forced to admit that the rejection of metaphysics never really succeeded at anything, except in creating questions that are impossible to answer. It's the same old story that repeats itself with contemporary epistemology. The questions asked and the angles taken are viewed as accomplishments of contemporary epistemology and they are timely questions and the debates are deep, but still it is important to situate them in a larger context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct that the section "Related fields" does not situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge. The reason is that this is not its purpose. If you can point out a specific passage in the section that violates NPOV then I can try to address it. You seem to suggest that the problem is more with other parts of the article than with something in this sections. I'll try to focus on improvements of this section for now instead of trying to fix everything at once. I plan to address the rest of the article later, one step at a time, but this will take a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first step to make sure that we are progressing toward a consensus is to situate clearly the subject with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge, because there is no way to judge any detail of this section before this is done. You ask me the impossible. Many sentences would have to be corrected to make clear that they are written from a specific point of view. I amend here what I wrote previously: there is a NPOV issue with the section per se. I only meant to say that there is no NPOV issue with the basic idea of relating contemporary epistemology with these non philosophical fields. It is just impossible to enter into the details before we correct that other more basic issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you can name a specific passage in the section "Related fields" that violates NPOV than I can try to address your concern. But there is not much I can do if the problem is so vague that this initial step is not even possible. In the light of your comment that there is currently no way to judge any detail of this section, how can you be certain in your judgement that the section actually violates NPOV?
- The challenge you're encountering may stem from the belief that the academic discourse on epistemology in the last 60 years, including high-quality sources, presents an overall biased view that needs to be contextualized. I'm not sure that this perspective aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- What academic discourse are you referring to ? Can you be more specific, explains a bit from where it comes from, etc. The usual readers might not have the background knowledge that you assume. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- You used the term "academics" above to characterize your position. That's why I used the expression "academic discourse". In this context, you can replace "academic discourse" with "academics" if it is easier to understand this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not remove the maintenance tag without answering the concern, even if it requires a clarification of the subject to do it well. Regarding your question, your sentence was "academic discourse on epistemology in the last 60 years", so it does refer to the discourse, irrespectively of the term I used. In any case, the fact that you believe that replacing "academic discourse" by "academics" can possibly remove any need for further clarification, suggests, as I already pointed out, that you take for granted that your knowledge about these "academics" (or about their "academic discourse") is shared by typical readers of the article. The reality is otherwise. Even academics from other cultures are not aware of this emphasis on an analysis of knowledge as justified true beliefs and related questions. Certainly, the average reader of this article is not aware of it. They are especially not aware of how this emphasis came to exist in the English culture, but not in other cultures, especially not in the French culture. This fact is very well documented by reliable sources that focused on this issue. So, this academic discourse is not a universal discourse. The problem is that the section emphasizes the naturalization aspect of this specific discourse, but it does it in Wikipedia's voice without providing any context. It is like propaganda for that view point as if it was a universal view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We have made very little progress so far in clarifying where exactly the alleged NPOV view is introduced and what changes would be required to avoid it. I asked for a third opinion at WP:3O in the hope that this might help us resolve your concern more productively. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- You keep repeating that I need to point out a specific sentence that violates NPOV. Let me explain better than I did why I will not. Suppose someone had asked you to give a specific word that violates NPOV. You would have complained that as a minimum it requires a sentence to see a violation. This is the well known principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In this particular case, it requires at the least a paragraph. I explained to you in which way every paragraph of that section violates NPOV, but it is not as clear when paragraphs are considered individually. It becomes much clearer when we consider the entire section. Previously, I explained that a better description of the context is needed to solve that NPOV issue. It would be more useful to say more precisely what it is you do not understand in what I explained in this comment and before. 3O is not a replacement for this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have made very little progress so far in clarifying where exactly the alleged NPOV view is introduced and what changes would be required to avoid it. I asked for a third opinion at WP:3O in the hope that this might help us resolve your concern more productively. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not remove the maintenance tag without answering the concern, even if it requires a clarification of the subject to do it well. Regarding your question, your sentence was "academic discourse on epistemology in the last 60 years", so it does refer to the discourse, irrespectively of the term I used. In any case, the fact that you believe that replacing "academic discourse" by "academics" can possibly remove any need for further clarification, suggests, as I already pointed out, that you take for granted that your knowledge about these "academics" (or about their "academic discourse") is shared by typical readers of the article. The reality is otherwise. Even academics from other cultures are not aware of this emphasis on an analysis of knowledge as justified true beliefs and related questions. Certainly, the average reader of this article is not aware of it. They are especially not aware of how this emphasis came to exist in the English culture, but not in other cultures, especially not in the French culture. This fact is very well documented by reliable sources that focused on this issue. So, this academic discourse is not a universal discourse. The problem is that the section emphasizes the naturalization aspect of this specific discourse, but it does it in Wikipedia's voice without providing any context. It is like propaganda for that view point as if it was a universal view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You used the term "academics" above to characterize your position. That's why I used the expression "academic discourse". In this context, you can replace "academic discourse" with "academics" if it is easier to understand this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- What academic discourse are you referring to ? Can you be more specific, explains a bit from where it comes from, etc. The usual readers might not have the background knowledge that you assume. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first step to make sure that we are progressing toward a consensus is to situate clearly the subject with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge, because there is no way to judge any detail of this section before this is done. You ask me the impossible. Many sentences would have to be corrected to make clear that they are written from a specific point of view. I amend here what I wrote previously: there is a NPOV issue with the section per se. I only meant to say that there is no NPOV issue with the basic idea of relating contemporary epistemology with these non philosophical fields. It is just impossible to enter into the details before we correct that other more basic issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct that the section "Related fields" does not situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge. The reason is that this is not its purpose. If you can point out a specific passage in the section that violates NPOV then I can try to address it. You seem to suggest that the problem is more with other parts of the article than with something in this sections. I'll try to focus on improvements of this section for now instead of trying to fix everything at once. I plan to address the rest of the article later, one step at a time, but this will take a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you have not understood the main point. It is not about a sentence in particular. It is about the role of the overall section in the article. For the purpose of the current discussion, i.e, to understand the point I try to make, it is useful to distinguish between the two following things:
Some context
[edit]The systematic assessment of claims to knowledge is the central task of epistemology. According to naturalistic epistemologists, this task cannot be well performed unless proper attention is paid to the place of the knowing subject in nature. All philosophers who can appropriately be called 'naturalistic epistemologists' subscribe to two theses: (a) human beings, including their cognitive faculties, are entities in nature, inter acting with other entities studied by the natural sciences; and (b) the results of natural scientific investigations of human beings, particularly of biology and empirical psychology, are relevant and probably crucial to the epistemological enterprise. Naturalistic epistemologists differ in their explications of theses (a) and (b) and also in their conceptions of the proper admixture of other components needed for an adequate treatment of human knowledg- e.g., linguistic analysis, logic, decision theory, and theory of value.
This is not sufficient context, but it gives an idea of what I mean by context that explains that links with these other fields make sense in a naturalistic context. More importantly, it will not accomplish its purpose until the article itself better situates itself in a larger context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
This edit goes into the right direction (though I would need to check its accuracy). In any case, it is only for one paragraph. This paragraph and the next one are specially important, because they are related to the historical context. This is fundamental, because the field is a response to an historical context and its associated historical issue. This should be provided earlier, because the article should be read with an understanding of that context and how the field reacted to it. Naturalization did not happen out of the blue. It happened in reaction to a problematic. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shimony, Abner (1987). "Introduction". In Shimony, Abner; Nails, Debra (eds.). Naturalistic Epistemology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 100. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3735-2. ISBN 978-94-010-8168-9.
I'm not entirely surprised that this discussion has stalled. It might help others if a very brief (2–3 sentences) explanation of the dispute can be given: there's a lot of text to wade through above. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Aza24 and thanks for taking a look! I'll try to summarize the dispute about whether the section "Related fields" violates NPOV, but I'm not sure that Dominic will agree with this summary. It's not exactly 2-3 sentences but I hope one paragraph is fine.
- Dominic says that the section "Related fields" violates NPOV in part because
- it "presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology"
- and it does not "situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge".
- I was unable to find a passage in the section where (1) is claimed, to which Dominic responded by stating that no specific passage can be determined because there is currently "no way to judge any detail of this section". Concerning (2), I stated that this is not required because this is not the purpose of this section. Dominic says that this is required nonetheless because "Epistemology as viewed by a majority of academics in the English culture" in the last 60 years (since Gettier's 1963 paper) has a narrow perspective that cannot be presented in Wikivoice but needs to be contextualized. This claim about the narrow perspective of the majority of academics seems to me an extreme minority view.
- I hope this is a fair presentation of a major part of the dispute but I'm open to corrections. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phlsph7 suggests that I am on the side of the minority in a dispute between contemporary epistemologists in the english culture and other philosophers. I am not engaging any dispute of this kind. It makes no sense to speak of a dispute and of a minority vs a majority when we refer to experts in a large domain vs experts in a more specialized field. The issue is that the usual reader needs a better explanation of this specialized field, a discussion of its basic premises, their historical context, etc. early in the article.
- The relation between philosophy and science is one of the most discussed issue in philosophy since the revolution in science in the 20th century and this discussion even existed in the 19th century. This is explained in many text books on the history of philosophy. The section Related Fields engages in that issue instead of describing that issue from a neutral perspective. I am not taking any position here on that issue. (If you want to know, I think the contemporary epistemologists in the English culture have taken the most natural position in that issue, but who cares about my position.) I am saying that the article itself should not engage in that issue, but describe it. I provided an excerpt from A. Shimony above that might be helpful for that purpose.
- Recently, Phlsph7 had the article engage even more that issue by adding a paragraph that presents naturalized epistemology as a branch of epistemology. Instead of discussing this fundamental issue in the talk page, he modifies the article so that it engages the issue and responds to a point made in the talk page. Some authors might say that it is a branch of epistemology, I never seen it, but it is possible. On the other hand, I have seen authors say it is one of the most pervasive and debated notions in epistemology. The article should not take sides, but describe the issue as a way to provide a context. This pervasiveness is consistent with the history of philosophy of science or of philosophy of knowledge (with science being the primary example) and how its evolution led to contemporary epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have reviewed some articles that @Phlsph7 has brought to FA. Some points:
- I think we all agree the history of philosophy is important. This article has a history section, which gives due weight and prominence to the issue. This article is about the concept of epistemology, not the history of epistemology. As the latter is a subtopic, per WP:SS, it should be summarized here. What @Dominic Mayers seems to be asking for is a historiography of epistemology, focusing on how historians have documented the evolution of
the general philosophical study of knowledge
into contemporary epistemology. That is a niche field of academic study that is beyond the scope of a broad-concept article. - It seems like Dominic Mayers is engaging in a sort of inverse is-ought fallacy regarding the Related fields section. That section is merely a neutral summary of what reliable sources have described as fields of inquiry that have some relation to the field of epistemology. Of course, philosophers, historians, and scientists debate what relationship science and philosophy ought to have. But pointing out that scholars have said that these fields are currently linked is not wading into that debate.
- I think we all agree the history of philosophy is important. This article has a history section, which gives due weight and prominence to the issue. This article is about the concept of epistemology, not the history of epistemology. As the latter is a subtopic, per WP:SS, it should be summarized here. What @Dominic Mayers seems to be asking for is a historiography of epistemology, focusing on how historians have documented the evolution of
- voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Please avoid arguments of authority and stick to the subject. Replies to the points:
- No, I am not asking that History becomes the central point of the article. History is only one of the most important tools to explain the field and to not assume people know what the field is. History should not be presented as a disconnected section at the end only. The article must use all the tools available to help the readers.
- The second point is based on assumptions. It even assumes that I am fallacious. Please stick on the subject. My point regarding the specific section Related Fields is that
pointing out that scholars have said that these fields are currently linked
violates NPOV because- the links are only with scientific fields (this is philosophy, not science) and
- the debates around these links are not covered and arguing that it was not the purpose does not make it better.
- Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have various sources that explicitly support that the fields are related. Could you provide sources that explicitly deny that they are related? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just explained that the NPOV issue is not about related vs not related, but about related to science only vs related to many fields (including a bit to these scientific fields) and also about a lack of description of the issue. NPOV is not only about proportion: NPOV can be violated even if there is only one point of view on the table. But, I am going to remove the maintenance tag for that section, because I want to deal first with the way the subject is introduced and it is best to put aside disagreements about this small section while we do so. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
the links are only with scientific fields
That's not true. The section covers both logic and decision theory in addition to psychology, education (not a scientific field), etc.the debates around these links are not covered
You keep making this claim that there's some "controversy" over this issue, but despite @Phlsph7 asking you for sources several times on this talk page, you have yet to provide any. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)- Mathematics is at the base of science and decision theory is so applied that it makes little difference. Education as a field is certainly closer to a social science than philosophy. The basic idea still hold. No, Phlsph7 did not ask for debates around these links, but very specifically for sources that claim these links do not exist. These are very different things. His point was clear. He was still arguing for the facts that these links are factual and he asked if I had sources that say otherwise, nothing more. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what Phlsph7 asked for. You've been making this claim, so it's on you to provide sources. We can't divine what you're referring to if you don't tell us what sources to look at or evaluate to change the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It mattered to me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what Phlsph7 asked for. You've been making this claim, so it's on you to provide sources. We can't divine what you're referring to if you don't tell us what sources to look at or evaluate to change the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mathematics is at the base of science and decision theory is so applied that it makes little difference. Education as a field is certainly closer to a social science than philosophy. The basic idea still hold. No, Phlsph7 did not ask for debates around these links, but very specifically for sources that claim these links do not exist. These are very different things. His point was clear. He was still arguing for the facts that these links are factual and he asked if I had sources that say otherwise, nothing more. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding point 1, I believe you when you say you're not asking History to become the central point of the article, but you've repeatedly made vague claims about how history is important without providing any sort of context, sources, or proposed language. Writing walls of text on the talk page about this alleged issue with the article is not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I only took the space needed to reply to never ending small questions, often totally besides my points, which exhausted me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers, I must agree with voorts. I am sympathetic to at least your general concern, and I would support edits providing additional historical context in a manner appropriate to a broad scope article. But please, just make them yourself! All of these talk page objections and maintenance tags are feeling to me just increasingly obstructionist. As the saying goes, don't make the best the enemy of the better! Patrick (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe explanations in talk page are useful. Maintenance tags are also useful, because they explain what changes are being planned, which invites team work. But, I certainly do not want to take an antagonistic approach. So, I appreciate your point and take note that my maintenance tags and comments are perceived as being antagonistic instead of contributions to a team work. Perhaps my style of writing is responsible for that perception, but I don't think comments and maintenance tags are intrinsically the problems. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have various sources that explicitly support that the fields are related. Could you provide sources that explicitly deny that they are related? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello voorts, I really appreciate you taking the time to have a look at the article and the lengthy talk page discussion to give your assessment. I share your concerns about the suggestions and objections presented by Dominic Mayers. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Please avoid arguments of authority and stick to the subject. Replies to the points:
Epistemology along ethics, logic and metaphysics: verifiable, but still one view
[edit]It could be interesting to develop on the view that epistemology was added along ethics, logic and metaphysics. One reason is that this statement by itself is not so enlightening. In particular, the term metaphysics itself would need to be explained and the article does not do that at all, even though the term is mentioned twice thereafter. But this is not the main reason. The main reason is that any division of philosophy is the expression of a philosophical point of view and it is important not to express a point of view as if it was always true, like an absolute truth. Certainly, epistemology was not always a fourth division of philosophy. It is a relatively recent invention and this invention must be properly explained, put in context. The fact that it is verifiable has nothing to do with the neutral point of view (NPOV).
This is a sense of NPOV that is not appreciated by those people that identify NPOV with a respect of proportion in sources. NPOV is more than that. Some think that any verifiable and pertinent statement can be included, as long as the proportion in sources is respected, but NPOV is an extra requirement that says we must know from where it comes from: Wikipedia must not engage in a point of view, but (factually) describe it. Some people argue that there is no need for that when the proportion in sources is large. This is a misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV requires that no point of view is expressed as a truth. What is confusing is that, in most cases, when the proportion is large, say in the case of scientific knowledge, then the context is clear and therefore NPOV is also respected without having to worry about it. It is not the case here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I slightly modified the sentence, which, I hope, addresses your concern.
- You write Wikipedia must not engage in a point of view, but (factually) describe it. Some people argue that there is no need for that when the proportion in sources is large. NPOV requires that no point of view is expressed as a truth. This is false. NPOV is limited to "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". For how to deal with minority and fringe theories, see WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE. For acceptable uses of wikivoice see WP:WIKIVOICE. If you claim that a passage violates NPOV, it's up to you to provide reliable sources to show that a source contradicts what our article says and that this is a significant view. You usually respond with a wall of text that fails to do either. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Proportion does not explain the need for attribution of opinions, which I called POVs. The way we organize philosophy in main branches depends on opinions. I don't care about attribution to a single author, as long as we have some context saying from where it comes from, I think it's fine. It should be obvious that this statement is propaganda for the field. It makes it more important by saying it is a "main branch". I am only saying fine, let's explain it more, what is metaphysics in that claim, etc. The main question is why it bothers you to provide more information so that the content is more informative, descriptive and neutral, not just the affirmation of something without any explanation ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't like the word "main", we can use "central", "core", or "major". Whether or why something bothers me personally is not the main question. This question about my psychological state is irrelevant to this maintenance tag, just like your personal opinions. Do you have a source to backup your claim that the sentence violates NPOV because it does not explain the word "metaphysics" or is this just a personal opinion? Without a source, it might be best to remove the tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article is not entirely determined by the sources and it is important that it isn't. Many editorial decisions must be taken by wikipedians, by all the wikipedians that wish a great article and work toward that goal. This means that we must be ready to discuss and take into considerations the editorial opinions of the other wikipedians that remains within the range of these valid editorial decisions. Just to be clear, it means that you do not have and I do not have to give a rule for every choice we make. It also means that we can both claim that a rule is violated when a choice is not within that range. I claim NPOV, not verifiability, is violated. In addition, the editorial choice to explain better the statement is important irrespective of NPOV. I understand that NPOV is a very complex rule to apply. So let us discuss this calmly with an appreciation of each other. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- While I disagree with your concern, I see 2 ways how it could be addressed: add a footnote to explain the term "metaphysics" or not mention the other disciplines. Would that solve what you see as a problem?
- Whether an assertion is NPOV depends on significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of editors: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors ... is irrelevant and should not be considered." Are you sure that your current behavior is not another example of the misuse of maintenance tags criticized above? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not ask you if you are sure that you are not giving your personal opinion about the rule that you cite here. This would be a rhetorical question. Obviously, you do not think that you misinterpret the rule. It is the same for me. I do not see anything in the small extracts from the text of NPOV that you quote that contradict my understanding of NPOV. Of course, when we apply due weight or balance, it is the sources that matter,
not the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors.
Again, unless we have a very broad understanding of tone that includes attribution and ways to achieve the same, NPOV is not just due weight, balance and tone. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) - Please expand on the solutions that you propose and stick to one point at a time. If you discuss my interpretation of the rule, stick to that point. If you propose solutions, stick to that. Ideally, present one solution at a time, the one that you consider the best. This would allow the discussion to be more focused. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: replace "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics.[1]" with "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics.[2][a]"
- Option 2: replace "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics.[4]" with "Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy.[5]"
- I do not ask you if you are sure that you are not giving your personal opinion about the rule that you cite here. This would be a rhetorical question. Obviously, you do not think that you misinterpret the rule. It is the same for me. I do not see anything in the small extracts from the text of NPOV that you quote that contradict my understanding of NPOV. Of course, when we apply due weight or balance, it is the sources that matter,
- The article is not entirely determined by the sources and it is important that it isn't. Many editorial decisions must be taken by wikipedians, by all the wikipedians that wish a great article and work toward that goal. This means that we must be ready to discuss and take into considerations the editorial opinions of the other wikipedians that remains within the range of these valid editorial decisions. Just to be clear, it means that you do not have and I do not have to give a rule for every choice we make. It also means that we can both claim that a rule is violated when a choice is not within that range. I claim NPOV, not verifiability, is violated. In addition, the editorial choice to explain better the statement is important irrespective of NPOV. I understand that NPOV is a very complex rule to apply. So let us discuss this calmly with an appreciation of each other. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't like the word "main", we can use "central", "core", or "major". Whether or why something bothers me personally is not the main question. This question about my psychological state is irrelevant to this maintenance tag, just like your personal opinions. Do you have a source to backup your claim that the sentence violates NPOV because it does not explain the word "metaphysics" or is this just a personal opinion? Without a source, it might be best to remove the tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Proportion does not explain the need for attribution of opinions, which I called POVs. The way we organize philosophy in main branches depends on opinions. I don't care about attribution to a single author, as long as we have some context saying from where it comes from, I think it's fine. It should be obvious that this statement is propaganda for the field. It makes it more important by saying it is a "main branch". I am only saying fine, let's explain it more, what is metaphysics in that claim, etc. The main question is why it bothers you to provide more information so that the content is more informative, descriptive and neutral, not just the affirmation of something without any explanation ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sources
- Hamlyn, D. W. (2005). "Metaphysics, History of". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
- Koons, Robert C.; Pickavance, Timothy H. (2015). Metaphysics: The Fundamentals (1. ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9574-4.
- Brenner, William H. (1993). Logic and Philosophy: An Integrated Introduction. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-0-268-15898-9. Archived from the original on 30 June 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
- Palmquist, Stephen (2010). Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-022623-2. Archived from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
- Jenicek, Milos (2018). How to Think in Medicine: Reasoning, Decision Making, and Communication in Health Sciences and Professions. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-351-68402-6. Archived from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
Notes
References
- ^
- Brenner 1993, p. 16
- Palmquist 2010, p. 800
- Jenicek 2018, p. 31
- ^
- Brenner 1993, p. 16
- Palmquist 2010, p. 800
- Jenicek 2018, p. 31
- ^
- Hamlyn 2005, p. 590
- Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 1–2
- ^
- Brenner 1993, p. 16
- Palmquist 2010, p. 800
- Jenicek 2018, p. 31
- ^
- Brenner 1993, p. 16
- Palmquist 2010, p. 800
- Jenicek 2018, p. 31
- Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I fail to see any problem with the current language. If it is to be changed to one of these options, however, I prefer the second.
- Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The details of the language are not the issue. The second option has an effect way beyond the language, because it takes metaphysics out of consideration. It has the value of allowing to focus on the key issue, which is the unexplained statement that epistemology (as covered in this article) is a major branch of philosophy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The general issue
|
---|
This is an issue that goes beyond the english culture, because articles in english Wikipedia must take an international perspective. I was just reading a book on philosophy of knowledge presented to me by wikipedians on the french Wikipedia. The notion of justified belief is only mentioned at some occasions in the entire book and even then it was not to present the analysis discussed in this article. Epistemology as discussed in this article is not a major branch of philosophy in other cultures. In fact, the French language does not even have a word for epistemology has presented in this article. The French "Épistémologie" is philosophy of sciences. The French "Théorie de la Connaissance" mostly ignores English contemporary epistemology that unfolded after the problems of Gettier about 60 years ago. It only briefly acknowledges and discusses the existence of an English epistemology, which mainly studies ordinary knowledge. It does not matter that many English sources claim so or that the field exists for 60 years, it does not make it a universal fact. Even if one has a book written in French (not a translation) that presents the English's view, it will not remove the fact that many French books (and perhaps German books, Italian books, etc.) do not have this view. I strongly believe that it is a major branch of philosophy in the English culture. It is even an obvious fact. But, this fact needs to be explained. This does not mean to add "in the English world" or anything like that. It means to be really informative, perhaps add a few sentences that explains who first presented it as a branch, connect this to the main concepts of the article, etc. Part of this could be done even earlier. Phlsph7 rejects my proposals as relativizations or contextualizations of an important field that exists for 60 years. He feels that it should not be needed. It is needed, because it will be very informative for the readers. If you step back a bit, it should be obvious that it is better, more neutral, to provide a context that explains how it happened, etc. than only doing propaganda by saying "its a major branch ...." It is propaganda, even if it comes from a well establish field in the English culture. Moreover, 60 years is not that much in a philosophical scale. Even only because of that, i.e., even putting asides the other cultures, some explanation from where it comes from will be useful. Please, please do not feel that I want to diminish the importance of the field. This is not the issue. In Wikipedia, we should not think that way. The idea is only to provide more information so that we are informative, not just making a claim "it's a major branch" out of the blue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
- I would support moving note 13, or some version thereof, up into the bottom of the final paragraph of Definition in order to strengthen the historical contextualization near the top of the article.
- I would also support making an effort to avoid describing people as doing epistemology before it was defined as its own branch of philosophy. The reason for this is that some people, including myself, consider the self-understanding of the agent to be a constituent part of the activity.
- In English, however, it is entirely common to apply the term anachronistically. In my anecdotal experience, this drives people educated in Germany completely bonkers, and it sounds as if it might be the same for France. But this is rather pedantic, and most of the time, as far as I am concerned, the practice is unproblematic. So I think it would be unreasonable to insist upon this across the board.
- If you can provide a paragraph or two explaining the emergence of epistemology as an independent branch of philosophy situated primarily in the world of Anglophone academia, that would be a most welcome addition. I would learn something myself. But you cannot demand that another editor research and write your ideal version of this article, which is what a lot of this looks like. Patrick (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to add an historical context, but it was rejected. Of course, it was not perfect, but there was no attempt to improve it. It was the very idea of an historical context that was rejected. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the diff? I don't think I saw it. Patrick (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was many diffs and looking at them individually will be confusing, but here is the diff that said historical contextualization at the start was not a good idea. I should say that I considered this a good thing, because a lot of the historical material in the moved sections were propaganda for the field, such as a big anachronism that claimed in Wikipedia's voice that the key question of epistemology essentially existed in Plato's philosophy. So, it was a big improvement to move that stuff at the end, but it was throwing the baby out with the bath water. The point is that, even if it was a good thing, there has never been an understanding that some contextualization is needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unless the same point is made with different language somewhere in the current article, I would support restoring this paragraph:
There are a number of different methods that contemporary scholars use when trying to understand the relationship between past epistemology and contemporary epistemology. One of the most contentious questions is this: "Should we assume that the problems of epistemology are perennial, and that trying to reconstruct and evaluate Plato's or Hume's or Kant's arguments is meaningful for current debates, too?" Similarly, there is also a question of whether contemporary philosophers should aim to rationally reconstruct and evaluate historical views in epistemology, or to merely describe them.
- I agree with Phlsph7, however, that the material in the section titled "Historical and conceptual context" is most likely to overwhelm and confuse readers. Patrick (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I also agreed to move the section for a similar reason, as I said. I also think that providing a context should not require much. Yet, I never felt that there was an intention to even discuss that. I will comment on your proposal later. I have no time now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the paragraph, I suppose sources could be found to verify that these questions are being asked by scholars. My main issue is that I do not understand what this paragraph would achieve in the article. I cannot see that it answers the concern that I raised (see below). It is fine, if it fulfils another purpose, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps, you only extracted the best you could find in the moved section. If that is the case, there has been a misunderstanding. I admit that this section was not a success and I feel it is better to start at fresh. Perhaps at the time, it would have been useful if someone had tried to understand what I was trying to achieve, but now it is the past. It's better to consider the concern that I express below (and above in the collapsed box). I will certainly propose a solution, as you suggest, but the key thing is that a neutral point of view is very difficult to achieve. It requires to describe instead of engage debates, etc. Therefore, we should work together, try to understand what the other is trying to achieve, even if the current proposal has problems. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was many diffs and looking at them individually will be confusing, but here is the diff that said historical contextualization at the start was not a good idea. I should say that I considered this a good thing, because a lot of the historical material in the moved sections were propaganda for the field, such as a big anachronism that claimed in Wikipedia's voice that the key question of epistemology essentially existed in Plato's philosophy. So, it was a big improvement to move that stuff at the end, but it was throwing the baby out with the bath water. The point is that, even if it was a good thing, there has never been an understanding that some contextualization is needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the diff? I don't think I saw it. Patrick (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to add an historical context, but it was rejected. Of course, it was not perfect, but there was no attempt to improve it. It was the very idea of an historical context that was rejected. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A branch named Epistemology was indeed created in the early 20th century (starting a bit at the end of 19th century). Before that, in the neo-kantian period, it was perhaps said that Erkenntnistheorie was a branch of philosophy. Yet, these are totally different branches, with totally different premises and thus different fundamental questions, even if superficially they might look the same. At the time of its creation, epistemology mainly focused on scientific knowledge. This original branch gave rise to French Épistémologie, which also focused on scientific knowledge. Today, we have a different kind of epistemology in English that studies ordinary knowledge claims and says nothing that specifically applies to science. French philosophers would certainly agree that their branch, the one that respected the original English branch, is a major branch of philosophy and they would disagree that English epistemology, as it is today, is the same as their Épistémologie. They even have a branch called Théorie de la connaissance that is more general and "covers" (but only briefly, just to say that it covers it) English epistemology. The readers need to be informed. to learn something meaningful. Which one is the extra major branch? What is this major branch anyway ? We do not repeat to the readers what English sources say as if it was a universal truth, just because it makes the field look nice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Epistemology is relevant to many descriptive and normative disciplines
[edit]I am now considering the statement "Epistemology is relevant to many descriptive and normative disciplines", which seems propaganda for the field. I do not doubt that the field is fascinating and should be created and all questions that it asks should be asked if it did not yet exists, but the application of the field in other areas must be well acknowledged in a neutral objective manner by many independent sources before it can be expressed in Wikipedia's voice. The first reference provided is toward two pages of the book Audi 2003, a 350 pages book. These two pages basically repeat what we already knew about science before the birth of contemporary epistemology. That does not support strongly the claim, even if attributed to Audi. I have not yet read the two other references provided. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Audi 2003, pp. 258–259 talks about the wide fields of "Scientific, moral, and religious knowledge" while also mentioning "other domains, such as that of art or history or literature." Wolenski 2004, pp. 3–4 has a detailed list, including "psychology, sociology, logic, history, physiology, pathology, axiology, metaphysics, and several other things." Campbell 2024 also provides a long list of fields where it is relevant, right in the lead section.
- If you are convinced that this support is not strong enough and presents a one-sided view, I suggest that you provide reliable sources that explicitly deny these statements. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The non existence of sources that
explicitly deny
the claim is irrelevant. We need sources for the claim and if such propaganda is stated in Wikipedia's voice, more than just a few sources must make the claim. It has to be pervasive in many different sources. Audi 2003, pp. 258–259 does not cover the moral and religious subsections, only the scientific subsection. The first page also has a brief two paragraphs introduction for the three subsections that essentially says: "The task is immense; here I will simply try to show how the framework laid out so far can clarify knowledge and justification in relation to some important aspects of science, ethics, and religion." This is far from sufficient to justify a statement in Wikipedia's voice. Again, the remaining two pages only cover science. Again, it only repeats what was known about science before the birth of contemporary epistemology. Of course, this kind of discussions goes nowhere. I should not have to repeat myself this way. Then people say oh it is a long discussion, etc. I agree. It is long, yet almost empty and it goes nowhere. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The non existence of sources that
Unfocused
[edit]The article has actually a focus on contemporary epistemology, which is great. But, it fails to state that focus clearly and this explains the maintenance tag. I proposed this
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the origin, nature, and scope of knowledge. The article focuses on contemporary epistemology which, since the mid 20th century, has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge and largely concerned itself with epistemic justification, the rationality of belief and related issues about ordinary knowledge claims. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas.
The main criticism is that the part "has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge" does not reflect the body of the article. The reality is that scientific knowledge is only mentioned three times in the core of the article:
- very briefly to illustrate concepts such as a priori and a posteriori knowledge,
- as belonging to a different field (philosophy of science),
- as an example of fallible knowledge (which is opposed to the central requirement of truth).
I ignored the fifteen times it is mentioned at the end of the article, often in "branches" that are ignored in the core of the article, in related fields, etc. It is fine that the article does that, because it focuses on contemporary epistemology, which itself focuses very little on science. For example, as does this article, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Epistemology, only mentions science or scientific three times:
- when describing Russell’s epistemology (at the time, science was still the main example of knowledge),
- briefly as an example to illustrate epistemic harms and epistemic wrongs,
- in a word analysis: “knowledge” can be translated into Latin as either “cognitio” or as “scientia”.
So, on the contrary, the description I proposed is very accurate and representative of the body of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article shouldn't contain editorializing (
The article focuses on...
) either in the article text itself or in a maintenance tag. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)- @MrOllie:, where this interdiction to refer to the article itself is stated. Long time ago, I don't remember where and when exactly, I asked the question and there was a consensus that it is fine and they even provided a few examples where it is done. Things might have changed, but if it is not a rule, only a recommendation, then we should ignore it in our case, because there is big need for it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found the thread where I asked the question and the guideline MOS:SELFREF was given to me as an answer. It says in its nutshell that it is fine. To be fair, though the guidelines clearly say it is fine to do that, in my search, I noticed that some wikipedians don't like it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not a 'big need' to state your opinion of the article in its text or in a maintenance tag. This is plainly a misuse of a maintenance tag, and the text itself is plainly WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I stated facts about the article. You have given no reason why it is a misuse. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- You added unsourced, self-referential statements which have more to do with your opinion of the article than anything else. A maintenance tag is not a special box to enshrine such opinions at the top of the article. Doing so is a misuse of a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie: it is a fact that the article focuses on contemporary epistemology. Currently, the lead says it implicitly but I have shown by pointing to guidelines that it can say it explicitly in a self-referential manner and that is no problem. It is important to clarify this, so that we can see that we progress. The "unsourced" part is a totally different concern now raised. Indeed, the statement "since the mid 20th century,[epistemology] has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge" should be verifiable. Are you simply asking for a source that verifies it. Is some other fundamental issue bothering you ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue that is bothering me is the one I have mentioned several times now: your attempt to insert editorializing into the article, either in the text or in a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, we have not progressed. I thought the guideline MOS:SELFREF took care of that issue. The discussion seems to have stalled. Of course, if you only mean to say that, personally, you dislike the approach that I propose, which you describe as "editorializing", then your position is reasonably clear. If there is any chance that you can change your view, let me know. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I have said several times before, the article is about epistemology in general, not just contemporary epistemology. The claim that it is or should be about contemporary epistemology is Dominic Mayers's personal view. Please stop misrepresenting your personal view as being an accepted fact. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- You have been warned about how you use maintenance tags in the discussion yesterday as well and I agree that the unfocused tag you added today is also a clear case of misuse. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, we have not progressed. I thought the guideline MOS:SELFREF took care of that issue. The discussion seems to have stalled. Of course, if you only mean to say that, personally, you dislike the approach that I propose, which you describe as "editorializing", then your position is reasonably clear. If there is any chance that you can change your view, let me know. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue that is bothering me is the one I have mentioned several times now: your attempt to insert editorializing into the article, either in the text or in a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie: it is a fact that the article focuses on contemporary epistemology. Currently, the lead says it implicitly but I have shown by pointing to guidelines that it can say it explicitly in a self-referential manner and that is no problem. It is important to clarify this, so that we can see that we progress. The "unsourced" part is a totally different concern now raised. Indeed, the statement "since the mid 20th century,[epistemology] has given little consideration to issues that are specific to scientific knowledge" should be verifiable. Are you simply asking for a source that verifies it. Is some other fundamental issue bothering you ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- You added unsourced, self-referential statements which have more to do with your opinion of the article than anything else. A maintenance tag is not a special box to enshrine such opinions at the top of the article. Doing so is a misuse of a maintenance template. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I stated facts about the article. You have given no reason why it is a misuse. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not a 'big need' to state your opinion of the article in its text or in a maintenance tag. This is plainly a misuse of a maintenance tag, and the text itself is plainly WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found the thread where I asked the question and the guideline MOS:SELFREF was given to me as an answer. It says in its nutshell that it is fine. To be fair, though the guidelines clearly say it is fine to do that, in my search, I noticed that some wikipedians don't like it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie:, where this interdiction to refer to the article itself is stated. Long time ago, I don't remember where and when exactly, I asked the question and there was a consensus that it is fine and they even provided a few examples where it is done. Things might have changed, but if it is not a rule, only a recommendation, then we should ignore it in our case, because there is big need for it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The SEP article you cite is about epistemology, not contemporary epistemology. The SEP article does not mention the term "contemporary epistemology". Making conclusions about a bias of contemporary epistemology based on counting how often a term appears in an article on epistemology is bad research that does not fulfill any Wikipedia verification requirements. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I never meant to say the subject is "Contemporary epistemology". Had I meant this, I would have requested that we move the article under "Contemporary epistemology" and I never requested this. So, please stop bringing confusion. I just want to bring out that epistemology after the mid 20th century has taken a very particular direction that is a defining fact of the subject: it gives little consideration to issues that are specific to science and that the article naturally adopts this approach, which defines the field. I have no problem to admit that the formulation that I used could be improved. Perhaps there is no need to refer to "contemporary epistemology" to bring out that defining fact of epistemology, as it is today, and that the article follows that. By the way, for the French philosophers who study "épistemologie", the defining characteristic of English (contemporary) epistemology (they also do not use the redundant "contemporary") is the fact that it focuses on knowledge in general and very little, if at all, on issues specific to science. It's the first thing they say about English epistemology. [1][2] Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Part of the explanation is a different meaning for a French word that was translated from the English word "epistemology" in the early 20th century, but it still remains that it confirms the fact that a focus on knowledge in general and little consideration for issues specific to science is a defining fact of English epistemology. It also brings out the historical fact that before the mid 20th century English epistemology focused on scientific knowledge: the French philosophers kept this original focus on science.
- ^ French philosophers of science, i.e. those that study "épistémologie", also made the field progress in their own way. Just like with Kuhn, the history of concepts in science became important for them. It's complicated: there is not a unique view point among French "épistémologists", but they certainly reacted to the revolution of science in the 20th century, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. in their own way.
Internalism/externalism
[edit]As an aside to all the discussions above, I don't think this article should describe the internalism/ externalism as a metaepistemological debate. There are plenty of sources that you could use to support it, but others take the complete opposite view. According to Kuenzle internalism/externalism about epistemic justification are explicitly epistemological positions for some defendants of the distinction between epistemology and meta-epistemology (Moser, Weinberg), while meta-epistemological for others (Fumerton)
. The SEP page on metaepistemology gives the debate as an example of paradigmatic first-order debates in epistemology
. I don't think we need to take a side or even bring it up in this article. Shapeyness (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for quoting these sources, I was not aware of them. I was following Crumley II 2009 (The internalism/externalism debate is a metatheoretical or metaepistemological debate ... it is a metaepistemological debate about the nature of epistemological theories) and Poston (Most everyone sees the I-E debate as metaepistemological). I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many sources that mention "metaepistemology" while presenting the debate, as an objection or as a support for anything, would rather be a justification to discuss it, not to ignore it. I am OK that we ignore it, but the real motivation is the opposite: the proportion of sources that discuss the debate without even mentioning metaepistemology is very high and that cannot be judged by looking at a few sources only. It requires a general familiarity with the sources. I actually provided an excellent source, because Fumerton is perhaps the most cited expert when it is question of metaepistemology and the internalism/externalism debate. He sees the debate as a part of metaepistemology and yet he introduced it with
The internalism/externalism debate occupies center stage in contemporary epistemology.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many sources that mention "metaepistemology" while presenting the debate, as an objection or as a support for anything, would rather be a justification to discuss it, not to ignore it. I am OK that we ignore it, but the real motivation is the opposite: the proportion of sources that discuss the debate without even mentioning metaepistemology is very high and that cannot be judged by looking at a few sources only. It requires a general familiarity with the sources. I actually provided an excellent source, because Fumerton is perhaps the most cited expert when it is question of metaepistemology and the internalism/externalism debate. He sees the debate as a part of metaepistemology and yet he introduced it with