![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Definitions are not false or true, but they can be inadequate. If by "knowledge" we mean pragmatic knowledge such as when I know that I have two hands, the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) makes Hume's balanced scepticism looks ridiculous when viewed in light of our common background understanding. Therefore, it is pushing one point of view over another. Sceptics such as Hume only say that we do not have a logical justification for this knowledge. Hume who was a very pragmatical empiricist never meant to say that we do not know that we have two hands. However, in the JTB definition, this is what Hume says, because if there is no justification, then it is not knowledge. I am not saying that the sceptics view point is not presented in the article. It is presented, but it is done with a definition of knowledge that creates a bias. In accordance with the JTB definition, scepticism says that we cannot have knowledge, which is ridiculous. Reasonable scepticism acknowledges, of course, that we have knowledge, but only says that no logical justification is possible for growth of knowledge: knowledge is always required to justify knowledge and in a justification process there is no growth, because deduction is not adding to that which is already known, i.e., is not ampliative. The article does not discuss much the distinction between know-how and know-that, a distinction that is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge distinction made by Hume and also by Popper and others, but in different manners. Growth of knowledge can be explained outside the realm of objective knowledge and thus of logic in terms of the connection between know-how and know-that. Know-how is primary. Animals have know-how, but not know-what (or very little).
Here are a few sources to show that JTB is controversial and, therefore, the article cannot be based on this definition. I suspect that a lot more can be found. Nicholas Rescher considered that induction must be accepted pragmatically without further justification [A] and that knowledge is standardly justified true belief. Here the qualifier "standardly" makes an important difference. [B]
Kevin Meeker and Frederick F. Schmitt argue that even in David Hume we can see a view that knowledge is justified true belief. [1] [2] However, Kenneth R. Merrill rather says that Hume adopted a point of view similar to Quine who saw epistemology as a part of psychology. [C] [3] Moreover, Schmitt's view on "justification" is not a logical justification: in this manner there is no contradiction.
Sven Bernecker and Fred Dretske wrote that after Edmund Gettier raised a problem with the JTB definition of knowledge no epistemologists found an acceptable variation on this definition. [D] Similarly, Conee and Feldman wrote "Although epistemologists have learned much about knowledge from this research, no consensus has emerged about the solution to the problem raised by examples like Gettier’s. [4] On the other hand, Paul Boghossian wrote that JTB is the standard, widely accepted Platonic definition of knowledge. [E]
Rohit Parikh and Adriana Renero argued that the popular belief that plato adopted JTB as the definition of knowledge is incorrect. [F] This is also a point made by Zina Giannopoulou. [G] Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The article does not discuss much the distinction between know-how and know-that, a distinction that is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge distinction made by Hume and also by Popper and others, but in different manners. Growth of knowledge can be explained outside the realm of objective knowledge and thus of logic in terms of the connection between know-how and know-that. Know-how is primary. Animals have know-how, but not know-what (or very little).These claims are unsourced,
Learning focuses on the agent: what skill, use, habit, is acquired. In the theory of knowledge, however, it is appropriate to focus on consequences, effects, artifacts. Knowledge begins as a quality of the artifact, its performance. ... It would be a misunderstanding to think I'm saying knowledge is about knowing how more than knowing that. This popular distinction is not as innocent, obvious, or neutral as it may seem. Indeed, it may be no more than a linguistic rationalization for the assumption that knowledge must divide along lines of intrinsic truth and mere instruments. ... Whether we speak of knowing that (such and such is true) or knowing how, we are qualifying capacities for performance at a high level with artifacts of some kind. Knowledge has much less to do with theory and truth than philosophers assume. What makes knowledge desirable and worth cultivating is the enhancement it brings to the effectiveness with which we operate in an artifactual environment. Knowing how and knowing that are not different kinds of knowledge. They are different kinds of use for different artifacts, all expressing the only kind of knowledge there is: superlative artifactual performance. [11]
The part that you quoted in green has a typo: I used "know-what" to mean "know-that". The latter is often translated as propositional knowledge. The former is more about direct acquaintance with some reality. The fact that know-how is related to evolutionary epistemology can easily be sourced. I even remember that have seen it again yesterday in some paper. It is just that I do not always remember where. There is certainly not any original research in what I wrote: anything that has some common sense cannot be original research, because you can be certain that some philosophers would have made the point. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I just read the passage that you quoted from Allen. It's this idea that I had in mind when I wrote that know-that can be explained by know-how. I understand that Allen goes further and says that we cannot even fruitfully separate these concepts. So, it seems to me that this passage shows that the point that I raised was not original research, but only that it needs to be phrased so that it matches more closely with sources, something that I always do. I am sure there are other sources beside Allen, some perhaps closer to what I wrote. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your idea that it's fine that epistemology represents a bias, I have no problem with that, as long as we can attribute this bias to some school of thought with prominent supporters. This is exactly why I was looking for prominent supporters for the view that knowledge is JTB. You might have missed this important point. The problem is that there is no indication at all of a bias in the article, so the bias is presented as if it was the truth and this is against WP:NPOV. The fact that epistemology has a bias opposed to Allen and perhaps many others have to appear right from the start or else the article should present a larger perspective on what is epistemolgy—we don't have to accept a limited definition of epistemology that is popular in a recent academic sphere, but not a universally accepted definition. Instead, it might be better for a Wikipedia article to adopt a more encompassing definition of epistemology. Maybe not, it depends on how clearly we can identify a school of thought with prominent supporters for this biased epistemology. I mean that, if we have no problem with Creationism because it is clearly identified as a religious view, in the same way we can certainly have an article on a biased epistemology, but it needs to be well identified with a school of thought so that we can see this epistemology within a bigger picture. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There is certainly not any original research in what I wrote: anything that has some common sense cannot be original research, because you can be certain that some philosophers would have made the point.If I had thought it was common sense, I wouldn't have said it may be original research, and it should be obvious that simply to state that it's common sense is unsatisfactory to someone who does not see what is common-sense about the claim that
the distinction between know-how and know-that [...] is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge. Biogeographist ( talk) 00:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between strong and weak knowledge plays a fundamental role in the section Epistemology#Philosophical skepticism, but this distinction is not defined in the article. Moreover, if this concept is really needed as it seems it is, it should not be verified in a single source and certainly not a tertiary source as it is the case now. NOR says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". In addition, this tertiary source is 24 years old (1997) and is not easily accessible. The section should be based on more recent sources and not only tertiary sources. In fact, a strong dependence on tertiary sources is a problem for the entire article. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 20:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sadbarg.sharifiy79. Peer reviewers:
Moriskume,
Ramcharitar30,
Roshelle.Firdman05.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This diagram represents true beliefs only, not justified true beliefs. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There really should be a separate circle for justification, so JTB is the intersection of 3 circles. Propositions that are justified and true, but not believed, are an important category. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Epistemic modal logic probably deserves a mention in the article, and there is even epistemic temporal logic used for problems like the blue-eyed islanders puzzle. Most of the stuff in this current article seems very old fashioned. Does anyone familiar with contemporary philosohpy also get that impression? It's not my subject at all, so I can't propose significant revisions other than a few additions here and there. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 19:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
[1] (reversion) This topic does seem to belong in an article about theories of knowledge, and the Bayesian epistemology section seemed like the most appropriate place, since PAC learning is about probabilistic estimates. The wiki about it is only about the AI part of the topic, but Valiant's book treats it as an explanation of biological evolution. I haven't read much of the book yet though, so leaving this here for now. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I was struck by the requirement in the other descriptions that for something to be knowledge, it has to be true (rather than only subjectively probably true). By that notion, the brain in a vat parable tells us that we can't be sure that anything is knowledge. I linked a few instances of philosophers connecting epistemology with PAC, but you probably know better than I do if that connection is anywhere near widespread. I'll keep reading the book too. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 23:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Am I the only person surprised that Michael Polyani isn't mentioned at all? 2601:246:5700:3570:211D:D7AA:13B9:834E kbachler ( talk) 01:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Larrys Text/Epistemology and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Larrys Text/Epistemology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Henry and the barn façades and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Henry and the barn façades until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I am expressing myself in english also I am french to coordinate differente wikis around the épistémologie/epistemologia/epistemology articles.
In english en:epistemology is the term used to refer to the branch of philosophy studying knowledge. But in some other languages fr:épistémologie, it:epistemologia, es:epistemologia, pt:epistemologia the same word doesn't have this meaning and is rather focused on science solely.
On the other side equivalents to en:epistemology exist in those other languages : es:gnoseologia, fr:théorie de la connaissance, it:Gnoseologia, pt:gnoseologia
Currently item Q9471 is a wikidata stew of a bunch of different articles that might have nothing to do with eachother.
I had previoulsy linked the fr:épistémélogie to other wikipedia articles that have an article with the same specific meaning under the item Q116930361 but this modification was deleted. I am now trying to coordinate the different wikis to do it again but letting know everyone so we don't revert this change every sunday.
the discussion can be found here D Cat laz ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
item Q9471 is a wikidata stew of a bunch of different articles that might have nothing to do with each otheris surely overstated (exaggerated). They are related; it is just a question of how best to indicate their relationships. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The following sentence is a misunderstanding of the history of the word.
The French term épistémologie is often used with a different and narrower meaning than the English term "epistemology", being used by many French philosophers to refer solely to philosophy of science in contrast to general theory of knowledge (théorie de la connaissance).
At the time of the translation, epistemology and its German equivalents, Erkenntnistheorie and Wissenschaftslehre, were all very much related to science. It is certainly true for Erkenntnistheorie, because the neo-kantisme in which the term was introduced criticized the German idealism for not respecting science. It is also true for Wissenschaftslehre. Otherwise, it could not have been criticized for not respecting science and, besides, some modern analyses conclude that science was reasonably respected by the German idealism. The Institute of Metaphysics did not consider any specific science, except epistemology which Ferrier viewed as a science, but it clearly made a distinction between common knowledge and scientific knowledge and Ferrier's epistemology was concerned with scientific knowledge (in a very general manner). Because Ferrier was considering scientific knowledge in a very general manner, Pierre Wagner wrote about Ferrier's definition:
It seems that the English word epistemology has never designated anything other than that part of philosophy which deals with the nature of knowledge, its scope and the ways of justifying what one claims to know (“claims to knowledge”), even if the ways of solving this family of problems have obviously changed. Question much more general than the problems raised by science or by particular sciences.
Here is the key point. The important distinction that is at stake here is not between science and common knowledge, but between the general nature of the approach versus the regional nature of the approach to science or knowledge. This is clearly seen in Jean-Claude Simard paper, used as a source in fr:Épistémologie. At the beginning, he writes
When one approaches epistemology for the first time, it must take note of the variations of the term. For the Anglo-Saxons, the term epistemology generally evokes a branch specialized in philosophy, the theory of knowledge. In France, it rather refers to the study of scientific theories. We can reconcile these two acceptances without undue artifice. by assimilating, in a very general way, epistemology to the theory of scientific knowledge. We will use mainly this sense here, closer to the French-speaking side.
The key point to note here is that Simard in the above paragraph does not refer at all to the distinction between the unified or general approach to knowledge and the regional approach. He refers to the distinction between an epistemology that does not focalise on science and a different kind of epistemology that focalises on science. He says that his paper only considers this second meaning of the word, closer to the French-speaking side
. This is made very clear by the fact that the central point of his paper is the distinction between the unified or general approach (which he illustrates with Popper's philosophy) and the regional approach (which he illustrated with Kuhn's philosophy), both philosophers being philosophers of science. Wagner also recognizes that and, in fact, says explicitly that it is the source of the confusion. He wrote
The last sentence explains the impression of confusion that emerges from this text for us who read it after more than a hundred years: in the neo-Kantian context, the theory of knowledge is constituted in a critical study of the sciences, it is that is, a study that seeks the conditions of possibility of scientific knowledge.
The last sentence in question is this sentence from Couturat :
In summary, Epistemology is the theory of knowledge based on the critical study of the Sciences, or in a word, Critique as Kant defined and founded it.
So, he explains that the confusion comes from the fact that we misunderstand that at the time epistemology and erkenntnistheorie (as well as wissenschaftslehre) were all oriented toward science. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You talk too much in some jargon that is difficult to understand (JTB, IEB, IFB ??? What the heck??!). I also don't like the changes you have made so far the lede of the article, and I would prefer we restart this discussion based on that original version of the lede, and what changes you are suggesting we make in it. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind what is the plan for the article and I am not interested in fighting for one or another, but it cannot be something improvised as we go and it has to allow us to respect NPOV. For example, we cannot claim that the subject of an article is Evolution and have its content be the same as in Creationism : the content might respect due weight within Creationism, but not within Evolution. Right now, the article presents itself as all forms of philosophy of knowledge or science, but actually is has mostly a JTB content. This is not acceptable. If the subject is the traditional analysis of knowledge, then it should be clear. The emphasis on JTB is very strong. The entire lead section is based on sources centered on the "traditional" analysis of knowledge. The only source not centered on JTB for the lead is Scientific epistemology: How scientists know what they know, but it is used for its JTB content. The lead has only a few sentences at the end that refer to specialized forms of epistemology, suggesting that JTB is the central view and these are some peripheral views. It is not neutral at all. Some people are questioning the traditional analysis of knowledge, especially the very fact that it is "traditional". The perspective on Plato, etc. presented in the article is entirely biased. Many authors do not agree with this perspective on ancient Greek philosophy. It would be much better to have an article on this subject (which it is already, but in a non neutral manner) and make it neutral. Meanwhile, I will proceed as if the subject is epistemology in the very acceptable sense of the "traditional" analysis of knowledge, but I will not mind if we propose clearly to switch to another subject. BTW, I do not worry that there is an article on JTB, no more that I worry that there is an article on critical rationalism and another one on falsifiability, Dominic Mayers ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the original version. Can we now restart the discussion of your suggested changes to be made step-by-step? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)The word episteme, 'knowledge', was thus very close in meaning to the word tekhne, 'skill'. The basic use of the corresponding verb i:1tlmUllat (epistamai) is said to be to express, in connection with an infinitive, an ability or a skill, i.e., 'knowing how to do something'.
— Hintikka 1974, Chap. 2
I don't think it makes sense that I have to argue for every edit that I do. It's you that should explain any problem that you see in my edits, not just say "I don't like it", so please undo the whole thing. But, I do an exception for my first edits. In the first edit, I change
The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse" (derived from the Greek word logos meaning "discourse"). [1]
for
The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge" [2], and the English suffix -ology, meaning "the science or discipline of (what is indicated by the first element)". [1]
The explanation is that this is what the source actually says. The visible sentence in the source says epistēmē is knowledge, not scientific knowledge, but one can click on epistēmē in the source to have more details. Then the source says scientific knowledge. The sources of quality that address the question are unanimous that episteme refers to knowledge that has a corresponding techne, skills. The footnote is part of the edit. It must be mentioned. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 02:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
References
I reply to this comment from Phlsph7. The new subsection for the French word was not a final decision. I thought it was an improvement to remove this from the Etymology section: it was just a displacement of the content. Whether a small subsection for French epistemology is undue weight depends on the actual subject. If the subject is epistemology at large, you will need to explain to me in which way it is undue weight, because it does not seem undue weight to me. More importantly, there is a need for a serious discussion whether the subject is epistemology at large, because, if it is epistemology at large (including the French view, etc.), then the lead is completely undue weight, given that it uses only sources centered on the modern analysis of knowledge (in which knowledge is justified true belief or at the least true belief). Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
German epistemology", "Spanish epistemology", "American epistemology", "Indian epistemologyis well understood and accepted, but it still makes perfect sense to have small sections for different notorious schools of thought such as German idealism in the background section. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 19:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Phlsph7's claim that "French Epistemology" (also called "Historical epistemology" or "Regional epistemology") cannot be found in a Google search made me nearly fall of my chair. If it is true, it is only a consequence of Google algorithm that is known to keep people in their own bubble. There are other bubbles. For example, in Québec, a classical course in epistemology such as the one described by Jean-Claude Simard, will not even mention the traditional analysis of knowledge, not a word about justified true belief, Gettier's problem, etc. Instead, the paper mentions Bachelard, Popper, Kuhn, etc. Every culture has its own bubble. The translation of "épistémologie française" is "French epistemology". It exists in English. It's not a question of language. It's only a cultural bubble. Another bubble that takes a different angle on epistemology and yet is presented in English is the Feminist perspectives in epistemology. The book was, of course, influenced by the French epistemology, which you say almost does not exist. I have looked the 30 or so philosophers mentioned in the Borchert article ( Laurence BonJour, William Alston, David Malet Armstrong, Alvin Goldman, Ernest Sosa, Hilary Putnam, ...) to see if any of these 30 philosophers is mentioned in this other book. None of them are mentioned. (Well Putnam is mentioned, but that's because he wrote a book on the philosophy of science, so it does not count.) In contrast, Foucault is mentioned 68 times. Popper is also mentioned. I am not saying that the article should not be about the traditional analysis of knowledge bubble (which is totally ignored in other bubbles). On the contrary, it is indeed an important bubble represented in many books and some encyclopedia articles under the title epistemology. I am not arguing against that. I am just saying that we cannot choose that subject (bubble) and claim that it is epistemology at large. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Definitions are not false or true, but they can be inadequate. If by "knowledge" we mean pragmatic knowledge such as when I know that I have two hands, the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) makes Hume's balanced scepticism looks ridiculous when viewed in light of our common background understanding. Therefore, it is pushing one point of view over another. Sceptics such as Hume only say that we do not have a logical justification for this knowledge. Hume who was a very pragmatical empiricist never meant to say that we do not know that we have two hands. However, in the JTB definition, this is what Hume says, because if there is no justification, then it is not knowledge. I am not saying that the sceptics view point is not presented in the article. It is presented, but it is done with a definition of knowledge that creates a bias. In accordance with the JTB definition, scepticism says that we cannot have knowledge, which is ridiculous. Reasonable scepticism acknowledges, of course, that we have knowledge, but only says that no logical justification is possible for growth of knowledge: knowledge is always required to justify knowledge and in a justification process there is no growth, because deduction is not adding to that which is already known, i.e., is not ampliative. The article does not discuss much the distinction between know-how and know-that, a distinction that is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge distinction made by Hume and also by Popper and others, but in different manners. Growth of knowledge can be explained outside the realm of objective knowledge and thus of logic in terms of the connection between know-how and know-that. Know-how is primary. Animals have know-how, but not know-what (or very little).
Here are a few sources to show that JTB is controversial and, therefore, the article cannot be based on this definition. I suspect that a lot more can be found. Nicholas Rescher considered that induction must be accepted pragmatically without further justification [A] and that knowledge is standardly justified true belief. Here the qualifier "standardly" makes an important difference. [B]
Kevin Meeker and Frederick F. Schmitt argue that even in David Hume we can see a view that knowledge is justified true belief. [1] [2] However, Kenneth R. Merrill rather says that Hume adopted a point of view similar to Quine who saw epistemology as a part of psychology. [C] [3] Moreover, Schmitt's view on "justification" is not a logical justification: in this manner there is no contradiction.
Sven Bernecker and Fred Dretske wrote that after Edmund Gettier raised a problem with the JTB definition of knowledge no epistemologists found an acceptable variation on this definition. [D] Similarly, Conee and Feldman wrote "Although epistemologists have learned much about knowledge from this research, no consensus has emerged about the solution to the problem raised by examples like Gettier’s. [4] On the other hand, Paul Boghossian wrote that JTB is the standard, widely accepted Platonic definition of knowledge. [E]
Rohit Parikh and Adriana Renero argued that the popular belief that plato adopted JTB as the definition of knowledge is incorrect. [F] This is also a point made by Zina Giannopoulou. [G] Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The article does not discuss much the distinction between know-how and know-that, a distinction that is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge distinction made by Hume and also by Popper and others, but in different manners. Growth of knowledge can be explained outside the realm of objective knowledge and thus of logic in terms of the connection between know-how and know-that. Know-how is primary. Animals have know-how, but not know-what (or very little).These claims are unsourced,
Learning focuses on the agent: what skill, use, habit, is acquired. In the theory of knowledge, however, it is appropriate to focus on consequences, effects, artifacts. Knowledge begins as a quality of the artifact, its performance. ... It would be a misunderstanding to think I'm saying knowledge is about knowing how more than knowing that. This popular distinction is not as innocent, obvious, or neutral as it may seem. Indeed, it may be no more than a linguistic rationalization for the assumption that knowledge must divide along lines of intrinsic truth and mere instruments. ... Whether we speak of knowing that (such and such is true) or knowing how, we are qualifying capacities for performance at a high level with artifacts of some kind. Knowledge has much less to do with theory and truth than philosophers assume. What makes knowledge desirable and worth cultivating is the enhancement it brings to the effectiveness with which we operate in an artifactual environment. Knowing how and knowing that are not different kinds of knowledge. They are different kinds of use for different artifacts, all expressing the only kind of knowledge there is: superlative artifactual performance. [11]
The part that you quoted in green has a typo: I used "know-what" to mean "know-that". The latter is often translated as propositional knowledge. The former is more about direct acquaintance with some reality. The fact that know-how is related to evolutionary epistemology can easily be sourced. I even remember that have seen it again yesterday in some paper. It is just that I do not always remember where. There is certainly not any original research in what I wrote: anything that has some common sense cannot be original research, because you can be certain that some philosophers would have made the point. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I just read the passage that you quoted from Allen. It's this idea that I had in mind when I wrote that know-that can be explained by know-how. I understand that Allen goes further and says that we cannot even fruitfully separate these concepts. So, it seems to me that this passage shows that the point that I raised was not original research, but only that it needs to be phrased so that it matches more closely with sources, something that I always do. I am sure there are other sources beside Allen, some perhaps closer to what I wrote. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your idea that it's fine that epistemology represents a bias, I have no problem with that, as long as we can attribute this bias to some school of thought with prominent supporters. This is exactly why I was looking for prominent supporters for the view that knowledge is JTB. You might have missed this important point. The problem is that there is no indication at all of a bias in the article, so the bias is presented as if it was the truth and this is against WP:NPOV. The fact that epistemology has a bias opposed to Allen and perhaps many others have to appear right from the start or else the article should present a larger perspective on what is epistemolgy—we don't have to accept a limited definition of epistemology that is popular in a recent academic sphere, but not a universally accepted definition. Instead, it might be better for a Wikipedia article to adopt a more encompassing definition of epistemology. Maybe not, it depends on how clearly we can identify a school of thought with prominent supporters for this biased epistemology. I mean that, if we have no problem with Creationism because it is clearly identified as a religious view, in the same way we can certainly have an article on a biased epistemology, but it needs to be well identified with a school of thought so that we can see this epistemology within a bigger picture. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There is certainly not any original research in what I wrote: anything that has some common sense cannot be original research, because you can be certain that some philosophers would have made the point.If I had thought it was common sense, I wouldn't have said it may be original research, and it should be obvious that simply to state that it's common sense is unsatisfactory to someone who does not see what is common-sense about the claim that
the distinction between know-how and know-that [...] is very much like the subjective knowledge versus objective knowledge. Biogeographist ( talk) 00:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between strong and weak knowledge plays a fundamental role in the section Epistemology#Philosophical skepticism, but this distinction is not defined in the article. Moreover, if this concept is really needed as it seems it is, it should not be verified in a single source and certainly not a tertiary source as it is the case now. NOR says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". In addition, this tertiary source is 24 years old (1997) and is not easily accessible. The section should be based on more recent sources and not only tertiary sources. In fact, a strong dependence on tertiary sources is a problem for the entire article. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 20:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sadbarg.sharifiy79. Peer reviewers:
Moriskume,
Ramcharitar30,
Roshelle.Firdman05.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This diagram represents true beliefs only, not justified true beliefs. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There really should be a separate circle for justification, so JTB is the intersection of 3 circles. Propositions that are justified and true, but not believed, are an important category. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Epistemic modal logic probably deserves a mention in the article, and there is even epistemic temporal logic used for problems like the blue-eyed islanders puzzle. Most of the stuff in this current article seems very old fashioned. Does anyone familiar with contemporary philosohpy also get that impression? It's not my subject at all, so I can't propose significant revisions other than a few additions here and there. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 19:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
[1] (reversion) This topic does seem to belong in an article about theories of knowledge, and the Bayesian epistemology section seemed like the most appropriate place, since PAC learning is about probabilistic estimates. The wiki about it is only about the AI part of the topic, but Valiant's book treats it as an explanation of biological evolution. I haven't read much of the book yet though, so leaving this here for now. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I was struck by the requirement in the other descriptions that for something to be knowledge, it has to be true (rather than only subjectively probably true). By that notion, the brain in a vat parable tells us that we can't be sure that anything is knowledge. I linked a few instances of philosophers connecting epistemology with PAC, but you probably know better than I do if that connection is anywhere near widespread. I'll keep reading the book too. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 ( talk) 23:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Am I the only person surprised that Michael Polyani isn't mentioned at all? 2601:246:5700:3570:211D:D7AA:13B9:834E kbachler ( talk) 01:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Larrys Text/Epistemology and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Larrys Text/Epistemology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Henry and the barn façades and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Henry and the barn façades until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I am expressing myself in english also I am french to coordinate differente wikis around the épistémologie/epistemologia/epistemology articles.
In english en:epistemology is the term used to refer to the branch of philosophy studying knowledge. But in some other languages fr:épistémologie, it:epistemologia, es:epistemologia, pt:epistemologia the same word doesn't have this meaning and is rather focused on science solely.
On the other side equivalents to en:epistemology exist in those other languages : es:gnoseologia, fr:théorie de la connaissance, it:Gnoseologia, pt:gnoseologia
Currently item Q9471 is a wikidata stew of a bunch of different articles that might have nothing to do with eachother.
I had previoulsy linked the fr:épistémélogie to other wikipedia articles that have an article with the same specific meaning under the item Q116930361 but this modification was deleted. I am now trying to coordinate the different wikis to do it again but letting know everyone so we don't revert this change every sunday.
the discussion can be found here D Cat laz ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
item Q9471 is a wikidata stew of a bunch of different articles that might have nothing to do with each otheris surely overstated (exaggerated). They are related; it is just a question of how best to indicate their relationships. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The following sentence is a misunderstanding of the history of the word.
The French term épistémologie is often used with a different and narrower meaning than the English term "epistemology", being used by many French philosophers to refer solely to philosophy of science in contrast to general theory of knowledge (théorie de la connaissance).
At the time of the translation, epistemology and its German equivalents, Erkenntnistheorie and Wissenschaftslehre, were all very much related to science. It is certainly true for Erkenntnistheorie, because the neo-kantisme in which the term was introduced criticized the German idealism for not respecting science. It is also true for Wissenschaftslehre. Otherwise, it could not have been criticized for not respecting science and, besides, some modern analyses conclude that science was reasonably respected by the German idealism. The Institute of Metaphysics did not consider any specific science, except epistemology which Ferrier viewed as a science, but it clearly made a distinction between common knowledge and scientific knowledge and Ferrier's epistemology was concerned with scientific knowledge (in a very general manner). Because Ferrier was considering scientific knowledge in a very general manner, Pierre Wagner wrote about Ferrier's definition:
It seems that the English word epistemology has never designated anything other than that part of philosophy which deals with the nature of knowledge, its scope and the ways of justifying what one claims to know (“claims to knowledge”), even if the ways of solving this family of problems have obviously changed. Question much more general than the problems raised by science or by particular sciences.
Here is the key point. The important distinction that is at stake here is not between science and common knowledge, but between the general nature of the approach versus the regional nature of the approach to science or knowledge. This is clearly seen in Jean-Claude Simard paper, used as a source in fr:Épistémologie. At the beginning, he writes
When one approaches epistemology for the first time, it must take note of the variations of the term. For the Anglo-Saxons, the term epistemology generally evokes a branch specialized in philosophy, the theory of knowledge. In France, it rather refers to the study of scientific theories. We can reconcile these two acceptances without undue artifice. by assimilating, in a very general way, epistemology to the theory of scientific knowledge. We will use mainly this sense here, closer to the French-speaking side.
The key point to note here is that Simard in the above paragraph does not refer at all to the distinction between the unified or general approach to knowledge and the regional approach. He refers to the distinction between an epistemology that does not focalise on science and a different kind of epistemology that focalises on science. He says that his paper only considers this second meaning of the word, closer to the French-speaking side
. This is made very clear by the fact that the central point of his paper is the distinction between the unified or general approach (which he illustrates with Popper's philosophy) and the regional approach (which he illustrated with Kuhn's philosophy), both philosophers being philosophers of science. Wagner also recognizes that and, in fact, says explicitly that it is the source of the confusion. He wrote
The last sentence explains the impression of confusion that emerges from this text for us who read it after more than a hundred years: in the neo-Kantian context, the theory of knowledge is constituted in a critical study of the sciences, it is that is, a study that seeks the conditions of possibility of scientific knowledge.
The last sentence in question is this sentence from Couturat :
In summary, Epistemology is the theory of knowledge based on the critical study of the Sciences, or in a word, Critique as Kant defined and founded it.
So, he explains that the confusion comes from the fact that we misunderstand that at the time epistemology and erkenntnistheorie (as well as wissenschaftslehre) were all oriented toward science. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You talk too much in some jargon that is difficult to understand (JTB, IEB, IFB ??? What the heck??!). I also don't like the changes you have made so far the lede of the article, and I would prefer we restart this discussion based on that original version of the lede, and what changes you are suggesting we make in it. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind what is the plan for the article and I am not interested in fighting for one or another, but it cannot be something improvised as we go and it has to allow us to respect NPOV. For example, we cannot claim that the subject of an article is Evolution and have its content be the same as in Creationism : the content might respect due weight within Creationism, but not within Evolution. Right now, the article presents itself as all forms of philosophy of knowledge or science, but actually is has mostly a JTB content. This is not acceptable. If the subject is the traditional analysis of knowledge, then it should be clear. The emphasis on JTB is very strong. The entire lead section is based on sources centered on the "traditional" analysis of knowledge. The only source not centered on JTB for the lead is Scientific epistemology: How scientists know what they know, but it is used for its JTB content. The lead has only a few sentences at the end that refer to specialized forms of epistemology, suggesting that JTB is the central view and these are some peripheral views. It is not neutral at all. Some people are questioning the traditional analysis of knowledge, especially the very fact that it is "traditional". The perspective on Plato, etc. presented in the article is entirely biased. Many authors do not agree with this perspective on ancient Greek philosophy. It would be much better to have an article on this subject (which it is already, but in a non neutral manner) and make it neutral. Meanwhile, I will proceed as if the subject is epistemology in the very acceptable sense of the "traditional" analysis of knowledge, but I will not mind if we propose clearly to switch to another subject. BTW, I do not worry that there is an article on JTB, no more that I worry that there is an article on critical rationalism and another one on falsifiability, Dominic Mayers ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the original version. Can we now restart the discussion of your suggested changes to be made step-by-step? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)The word episteme, 'knowledge', was thus very close in meaning to the word tekhne, 'skill'. The basic use of the corresponding verb i:1tlmUllat (epistamai) is said to be to express, in connection with an infinitive, an ability or a skill, i.e., 'knowing how to do something'.
— Hintikka 1974, Chap. 2
I don't think it makes sense that I have to argue for every edit that I do. It's you that should explain any problem that you see in my edits, not just say "I don't like it", so please undo the whole thing. But, I do an exception for my first edits. In the first edit, I change
The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse" (derived from the Greek word logos meaning "discourse"). [1]
for
The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge" [2], and the English suffix -ology, meaning "the science or discipline of (what is indicated by the first element)". [1]
The explanation is that this is what the source actually says. The visible sentence in the source says epistēmē is knowledge, not scientific knowledge, but one can click on epistēmē in the source to have more details. Then the source says scientific knowledge. The sources of quality that address the question are unanimous that episteme refers to knowledge that has a corresponding techne, skills. The footnote is part of the edit. It must be mentioned. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 02:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
References
I reply to this comment from Phlsph7. The new subsection for the French word was not a final decision. I thought it was an improvement to remove this from the Etymology section: it was just a displacement of the content. Whether a small subsection for French epistemology is undue weight depends on the actual subject. If the subject is epistemology at large, you will need to explain to me in which way it is undue weight, because it does not seem undue weight to me. More importantly, there is a need for a serious discussion whether the subject is epistemology at large, because, if it is epistemology at large (including the French view, etc.), then the lead is completely undue weight, given that it uses only sources centered on the modern analysis of knowledge (in which knowledge is justified true belief or at the least true belief). Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
German epistemology", "Spanish epistemology", "American epistemology", "Indian epistemologyis well understood and accepted, but it still makes perfect sense to have small sections for different notorious schools of thought such as German idealism in the background section. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 19:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Phlsph7's claim that "French Epistemology" (also called "Historical epistemology" or "Regional epistemology") cannot be found in a Google search made me nearly fall of my chair. If it is true, it is only a consequence of Google algorithm that is known to keep people in their own bubble. There are other bubbles. For example, in Québec, a classical course in epistemology such as the one described by Jean-Claude Simard, will not even mention the traditional analysis of knowledge, not a word about justified true belief, Gettier's problem, etc. Instead, the paper mentions Bachelard, Popper, Kuhn, etc. Every culture has its own bubble. The translation of "épistémologie française" is "French epistemology". It exists in English. It's not a question of language. It's only a cultural bubble. Another bubble that takes a different angle on epistemology and yet is presented in English is the Feminist perspectives in epistemology. The book was, of course, influenced by the French epistemology, which you say almost does not exist. I have looked the 30 or so philosophers mentioned in the Borchert article ( Laurence BonJour, William Alston, David Malet Armstrong, Alvin Goldman, Ernest Sosa, Hilary Putnam, ...) to see if any of these 30 philosophers is mentioned in this other book. None of them are mentioned. (Well Putnam is mentioned, but that's because he wrote a book on the philosophy of science, so it does not count.) In contrast, Foucault is mentioned 68 times. Popper is also mentioned. I am not saying that the article should not be about the traditional analysis of knowledge bubble (which is totally ignored in other bubbles). On the contrary, it is indeed an important bubble represented in many books and some encyclopedia articles under the title epistemology. I am not arguing against that. I am just saying that we cannot choose that subject (bubble) and claim that it is epistemology at large. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)