Talk:Epistemology

We can proceed with the central concepts and see what context is needed

The context that was moved at the end might not be what people in the contemporary epistemological bubble expect, but Wikipedia is not the place to reproduce bubbles that occur in academic circles. I mean, one might feel that the section on central concepts is self sufficient and does not need context, but that is because it is presented as a bubble that stands on its own. It presents a view of analytic philosophy on knowledge, in particular, the justified true belief view, as if it was the only view. This is not what Wikipedia must do. The whole point of having a context is to change that. But, we can start with the central concepts and try to present them in a way that acknowledges the specific place contemporary epistemology has within its context. Will see how it goes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that articles should not ignore alternative views. But as I see it, our main job is usually to present the dominant views as discussed in the reliable academic sources. That doesn't mean that critical voices stating alternative views are ignored or silenced. But they don't receive the same attention in terms of coverage and placement. So whatever bubble the academic discourse may be in, it's not our responsibility to burst it or to protect our readers from the dominant views in it. The discussion of justified true belief and alternative characterizations is not at the beginning but found in a later section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I find annoying that you suggest that I want to protect our readers from the dominant views in the subject—I am not even sure what you mean by this and that makes it even more annoying. The natural interpretation of "protect against a content" would be not to present that content, but that leads to a ridiculous concern: my entire goal is to present the dominant and contemporary view in epistemology within its context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the cause of annoyance. If your bubble remarks were meant in different sense then I'm happy that we are on the same page. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

image for lead

A B-class article that gets as much traffic as this one ought to have an image in the lead so that it is appealingly decorated in search results. I am adding Mind in Cave by David S. Soriano. If this is too flashy, a couple other options would be [1] or [2]. I don't have strong views on what the image should be, just that the article ought to have one.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your image is that it suggests that modern epistemology asks the same questions which Plato also asked, but many philosophers disagree with that. Not only the text of a Wikipedia article, but also its images cannot present a view point in Wikipedia's voice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My only request then would be to replace it with something you deem more neutral rather than simply removing it. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Although, honestly, if I wanted to, such a distinctly modernist take on an ancient allegory could easily be defended as making precisely your point: the same abiding interest in knowledge takes on different forms under different historical circumstances.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article

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. 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.

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.

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 [3]. 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. 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 to be 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. 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)

Notes

Etymology used to present a point of view

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: L'épistémologie (du grec ancien ἐπιστήμη / epistếmê, « connaissance vraie, science » et λόγος / lógos / « discours ») est d'abord l'étude de la connaissance scientifique. which translates as Epistemology (from ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη / epistếmê, “true knowledge, science” and λόγος / lógos / “discourse”) is first and foremost the study of scientific knowledge. 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

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. 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