This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello
Vontheri and thanks for looking up the page numbers. But the recently added paragraph on knowledge in the Qabalah However still has various problems. For example, I don't think that the claims that knowledge is a corruption of divine, whereas the sephira for wisdom (known by the Hebrew word "chokmah") and the sephira for understanding (known by the Hebrew word "binah"), are distinguished from knowledge and are viewed, unlike knowledge, as being related to actual truth. Knowledge (Daath) is viewed as having no true qualities of its own
are found in the sources. They seem to be even contradicted by the Regardie 2000: The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge.
Is it a sephira or not? Does it contrast with wisdom and understanding or not? Many of the characteristics ascribed to Daath in the article
Da'at are again very different from the ones mentioned here.
Phlsph7 (
talk) 13:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
qabalah: a variant spelling of kabbalah. It seems to me that various claims made in the paragraph are based on personal interpretations and fall under WP:OR or WP:SYN. Since Kabbalah belongs to Jewish mysticism, it should probably be discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "Religion", which deals with the Jewish tradition. I would make it a little shorter since it has not the same importance as other traditions. We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree. What do you think about adding the following sentences to that paragraph? I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence). The other details would probably fit better into the article Da'at.
The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah sees knowledge as an important element and refers to it as Daath. It seeks to decipher hidden knowledge found in the Hebrew Scriptures. To this hidden knowledge belongs the idea that the divine reveals itself through 10 emanations, known as sephirot, and that knowledge is the 11th sephira, sometimes also seen as a false sephira. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
There is an eleventh "something" which is definitely not a sephira, but is often shown on modern representations of the Tree. The Cabalistic "explanation" runs as follows: when Malkuth "fell" out of the Garden of Eden it left behind a "hole" in the fabric of the Tree, and this "hole", located in the center of the Abyss, is called Daath, or Knowledge. Daath is *not* a sephira; it is a hole. This may sound like gobbledy-gook, and in the sense that it is only a metaphor, it is.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree"for example whether wisdom and understanding stand in contrast with knowledge or not.
"I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence)."this refers to my earlier proposal of how the material on the Kabbalah could be included. The proposal starts with
The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah.... The "claims" are statements made in the text of this proposal.
the word "knowledge" doesn't appear in the article for Christianity (except for in a quote in a reference), either, but I doubt many would argue that Christianity doesn't have a place in this article.Frankly, I would be fine with removing all the paragraphs about each brand-name Abrahamic religion. What each of them says doesn't seem original to me. "It's good and it comes from God." Yeah, I get it, do we need three paragraphs to say that?
it is impossible to adequately explain "knowledge" within Qabalah without comparing and contrasting it with "understanding" and "wisdom".I agree that seems to be important, so I added a clause about that based on what you've said about it. Please check it to make sure that what I wrote is accurate according to the sources. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge) and (2) the claim about the relation to truth (or the lack thereof) is not supported by the sources.
It acts as a self-evolved link between the higher Genius, on the one hand, at peace in its Supernal abode, and, on the other hand, the human soul bound by its Fall to the world of illusion and sense and matter. Not until that self-consciousness and acquired knowledge are turned to noble and altruistic ends, so long will sorrow and suffering be the inevitable result.(Note that "the Supernal Abode" or "the Supernal triad" refer to wisdom (Binah), understanding (Chokmah), as well as the highest Sephira (Kether), which is usually translated as "crown.")
DAATH —Knowledge— is not a Sephira. It is not on the Tree of Life; that is, there is in reality no such thingand
And these five principles culminate in a sixth, Daath, Knowledge. But this is not really a principle; it contains in itself the germ of self-contradiction and so of self-destruction. It is a false principle: for, as soon as Knowledge is analysed, it breaks up into the irrational dust of the Abyss.[6]
DAATH. Knowledge, child of Chokmah and Binah in one sense, in the other the empty and structureless condition of Choronzon.Thus, (Regardie 2000 pp. 33-4:
The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge)does not actually refute what it, at first glance, appears to refute. (Note that the author Israel Regardie was the personal secretary of the author Aleister Crowley, and the two even lived together for a length of time.)
For She is omniform as Love and Death, the Great Sea whence all Life springs, and whose black womb re-absorbs all. She thus resumes in herself the duplex process of the Formula of Love under Will [...] Yet let it not be forgotten that though She be love, her function is but passive; she is the vehicle of the Word, of Chokmah, Wisdom, the All-Father, who is the Will of the All-One. And thus they err with grievous error and dire who prate of Love as the Formula of Magick; Love is unbalanced, void, vague, undirected, sterile nay, more, a very Shell, the prey of abject orts, demonic: Love must be "under will.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been meaning to take on one of your GA nominations for a while. Given the nature of this article, I'm going to pay special attention to criteria 1a and 3, and I expect to work through the article and its sources over the next few days before posting the initial review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
General:
Lead:
Definitions:
cognitive success or an epistemic contactcould be clarified.
the general characteristics of knowledge listed above– avoid self-referential phrases when possible. The sentence should still make sense if "listed above" is deleted.
differences concerning the standards of knowledge that people intend to uphold– clarify
Others seek a common core among diverse examples of knowledge, such as Paul Silva's "awareness first" epistemology or Barry Allen's definition of knowledge as "superlative artifactual performance".– This essentially name drops philosophers without context. Instead, consider a one or two sentence description of what "common core among diverse examples of knowledge" actually means.
that the believed fact caused the belief– Explain. Maybe this should be its own sentence?
Other approaches include defining it in regard to the cognitive role it plays in providing reasons for doing or thinking something or seeing it as the most general factive mental state operator.– This is a mouthful. Even with the footnote, it should probably be rewritten for clarity.
the JTB definition is a step in the right direction– This feels idiomatic
they often fall prey– Also idiomatic
Types
The distinctions between the major types are usually drawn based on the linguistic formulations used to express them– This is the sort of thing that would be better fit to introduce the Types section. It's not specifically about propositional knowledge, it's about the nature of the different types.
is either occurrent and dispositional– Is this "and" supposed to be an "or"?
It is usually agreed that mainly humans and maybe other higher animals possess propositional knowledge– This should be rewritten to be more precise. I would suggest treating humans and higher animals in two separate sentences. Also, it should be moved to the section on propositional knowledge.
The prime example of the relevant experience– Saying that something is "the prime example" comes across as subjective.
The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is closely related to two other distinctions– It goes on to name the distinctions without clearly defining them for the reader. But as I said below, this paragraph might be undue anyway.
Sources of knowledge:
Sources of knowledge are "rational capacities for knowledge"– This definition doesn't add much. Without more context, it's practically just a synonym for "sources".
This distinction is important– We shouldn't say in wikivoice what's important and what isn't. Instead, just describe what role it plays.
Structure of knowledge:
The expression "structure of knowledge" refers to– The article should talk about the concepts, not the expressions. Instead of "refers to", describe what the structure of knowledge is.
Value of knowledge:
The value of knowledge is an important topic in epistemology.– Begin by describing the basic premise without arguing that it's important.
On this view, it seems difficult to explain– We shouldn't state that something "seems" to be the case. Maybe it "can be difficult" or "it becomes difficult", but it's not Wikipedia's place to say that something "seems" a certain way.
Philosophical skepticism:
This position is quite radical– This is another example of "show, don't tell". Simply state that few philosophers defend it, and the reader will interpret that it is radical.
In various disciplines:
It is different from other forms of epistemology because of its unique subject matter.– This doesn't really say anything. "It's different because what it talks about is different." Either it should clarify how the subject matter is unique, or this sentence should be removed.
As Pope Francis points out– Avoid "points out". It implies that we're agreeing with whoever we're quoting.
An important finding is that– Don't preview the statement by describing it as important, just present the statement factually.
It often, but not exclusively, concerns a relation to a person.– I think this still puts too much emphasis on being about a person. Most of the examples on the IEP section of knowledge by acquaintance are not about people. It would be more accurate to say something to explain that it can be about anything that's experienced, perceived, or interacted with directly.
The term “situated knowledge” has two quite distinct disciplinary connections.
The two disciplinary fields have come together in studies of knowledge deriving from practice.... As I understand it, we have one general concept here that is applied in feminist literature in a specific way. This is also what [11] seems to state. Grossly oversimplified, the two parts of the section are "situated knowledge is defined as..." and "feminists claim that all knowledge is situated knowledge". Do you think the section works in its current, modified form? Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecks
|
---|
Spotchecks:
|
Broad coverage:
individuals who associate themselves with similar identities, like age-influenced, professional, religious, and ethnic identities, tend to embody similar forms of knowledge.– This feels like it would be way too important to just be one sentence.
Excessive detail:
The only real concern here is the amount of weight given to different epistemological schools of thought. Empiricism and rationalism, arguably the two most important, are given adequate coverage in sources of knowledge, though they could be distinguished more clearly. Some major schools of thought, such as Pragmatism and Relativism, are overlooked. Skepticism, on the other hand, is given its own section. Similarly, decolonial scholarship has its own section on par with science, religion, and anthropology despite being a WP:MINORASPECT of knowledge that's not widely accepted.
There seem to have been some disputes about the religion section in mid-February. Has this been resolved?
All images are Creative Commons or public domain. I suspect that the diagrams are ineligible for copyright and automatically in the public domain. Some of the images feel vaguely decorative, but I think they have sufficient relevance, especially since this is a broad concept article. Captions sufficiently describe context and relevance.
References
References
What the Gettier cases show is that this condition is insufficient to capture all the ways in which accidental truth is incompatible with knowledge.
Is there some way to suppress the {{ Artificial intelligence}} navbox that is transcluded in the excerpt in Knowledge § Artificial intelligence? This article is not part of a series of articles on AI, so that navbox shouldn't be transcluded here. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering to prepare this article for a featured article candidacy at some point. I think it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion in its current state because it leaves out some central topics. One point is that the article may need a short overview section of the history of knowledge. Another is that the article currently discusses skepticism but has very little information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism. An in-depth discussion would not be appropriate for this type of overview article but some more information would be preferable. It would also be good to have more information on knowledge management. This could maybe be combined with the discussion of knowledge representation at the end of the article.
At some points, the article gives too much detail. For example, the subsection Knowledge#Other distinctions has 7 subsubsection. I think a lot of summarizing could be done here. The text on philosophical skepticism is also quite detailed and could be shortened to leave more room for other schools of epistemology. These changes would ensure that the article does not grow too much overall despite the suggested additions.
I think it's not a good idea for featured articles to use excerpts, especially if they are from stubs like Meta-knowledge. So they would have to be replaced with regular text. Various other technical changes would be needed but they would mostly be minor changes.
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 slowly get started to implement them one at a time. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism. I would question the need for this, as the framing of rationalism versus empiricism as "schools" of epistemology seems too scholastically didactic and historical/outdated for an up-to-date general article on knowledge. Skepticism is different, because it is (considered abstractly) the antithesis or denial of knowledge. It may be true that the section on skepticism is too detailed, but I would advocate that skepticism here should not be considered one among various historical "schools" of epistemology (which is a framing that belongs in Epistemology) but as a more basic negation of some claim to knowledge or the possibility of knowledge. In short: there's no need in this article for a discussion of more "schools" of epistemology. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed until now that in March 2023
Phlsph7 started using {{
multiref2}} to separate multiple short citations in ref tags in this article. In the rendered HTML, the {{
multiref2}} template puts each short citation in a separate list item with the following CSS style: margin-bottom:.5em
. To my eye (and this may be matter of personal taste?) this is far too much white space between short citations, especially given that the standard spacing between reference list items is margin-bottom:.1em
, if I'm not mistaken. In other words, the display style is not compact enough. It seems to me that {{
multiref2}} is much better suited to separating long full citations instead of short citations.
I propose that instead of using {{ multiref2}} to separate short citations in ref tags we use semicolons instead. The difference can be seen in the second and third examples in Help:Shortened footnotes § Bundling citations. So, for example, the first instance would change from
<ref>{{multiref2 | {{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acCpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}} | {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QDqPIsiEXEC&pg=PT10 10]}} | {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HSE6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT75 75]}} | {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}} | {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}} | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}} }}</ref>
which renders as [1]
to
<ref>{{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acCpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}}; {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QDqPIsiEXEC&pg=PT10 10]}}; {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HSE6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT75 75]}}; {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}}; {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}}; {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}}</ref>
which renders as [1]
This use of semicolons followed by a period after the last short citation also seems more stylistically congruent with the {{ sfn}} template, because each single instance of {{ sfn}} is terminated by a period in the reference list, whereas references that use {{ multiref2}} are currently not similarly terminated.
If there is consensus for this change, I am willing to do the conversion of the existing references. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{harvnb ... }}</ref>
. The latter is how I used to create shortened footnotes before I discovered the {{
sfn}} template. It required manually naming repeated references (handled automatically by {{
sfn}}), but that was easy to do since only 9 refs needed to be named.Allwood 2013, p. 69–72, Anthropology of Knowledge, repeat the chapter title even though the full reference template already includes the chapter. This is not the case for all location infos, as in
Hill 2009, § Idiosyncratic Views of Knowledge. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello
Vontheri and thanks for looking up the page numbers. But the recently added paragraph on knowledge in the Qabalah However still has various problems. For example, I don't think that the claims that knowledge is a corruption of divine, whereas the sephira for wisdom (known by the Hebrew word "chokmah") and the sephira for understanding (known by the Hebrew word "binah"), are distinguished from knowledge and are viewed, unlike knowledge, as being related to actual truth. Knowledge (Daath) is viewed as having no true qualities of its own
are found in the sources. They seem to be even contradicted by the Regardie 2000: The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge.
Is it a sephira or not? Does it contrast with wisdom and understanding or not? Many of the characteristics ascribed to Daath in the article
Da'at are again very different from the ones mentioned here.
Phlsph7 (
talk) 13:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
qabalah: a variant spelling of kabbalah. It seems to me that various claims made in the paragraph are based on personal interpretations and fall under WP:OR or WP:SYN. Since Kabbalah belongs to Jewish mysticism, it should probably be discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "Religion", which deals with the Jewish tradition. I would make it a little shorter since it has not the same importance as other traditions. We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree. What do you think about adding the following sentences to that paragraph? I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence). The other details would probably fit better into the article Da'at.
The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah sees knowledge as an important element and refers to it as Daath. It seeks to decipher hidden knowledge found in the Hebrew Scriptures. To this hidden knowledge belongs the idea that the divine reveals itself through 10 emanations, known as sephirot, and that knowledge is the 11th sephira, sometimes also seen as a false sephira. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
There is an eleventh "something" which is definitely not a sephira, but is often shown on modern representations of the Tree. The Cabalistic "explanation" runs as follows: when Malkuth "fell" out of the Garden of Eden it left behind a "hole" in the fabric of the Tree, and this "hole", located in the center of the Abyss, is called Daath, or Knowledge. Daath is *not* a sephira; it is a hole. This may sound like gobbledy-gook, and in the sense that it is only a metaphor, it is.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree"for example whether wisdom and understanding stand in contrast with knowledge or not.
"I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence)."this refers to my earlier proposal of how the material on the Kabbalah could be included. The proposal starts with
The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah.... The "claims" are statements made in the text of this proposal.
the word "knowledge" doesn't appear in the article for Christianity (except for in a quote in a reference), either, but I doubt many would argue that Christianity doesn't have a place in this article.Frankly, I would be fine with removing all the paragraphs about each brand-name Abrahamic religion. What each of them says doesn't seem original to me. "It's good and it comes from God." Yeah, I get it, do we need three paragraphs to say that?
it is impossible to adequately explain "knowledge" within Qabalah without comparing and contrasting it with "understanding" and "wisdom".I agree that seems to be important, so I added a clause about that based on what you've said about it. Please check it to make sure that what I wrote is accurate according to the sources. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge) and (2) the claim about the relation to truth (or the lack thereof) is not supported by the sources.
It acts as a self-evolved link between the higher Genius, on the one hand, at peace in its Supernal abode, and, on the other hand, the human soul bound by its Fall to the world of illusion and sense and matter. Not until that self-consciousness and acquired knowledge are turned to noble and altruistic ends, so long will sorrow and suffering be the inevitable result.(Note that "the Supernal Abode" or "the Supernal triad" refer to wisdom (Binah), understanding (Chokmah), as well as the highest Sephira (Kether), which is usually translated as "crown.")
DAATH —Knowledge— is not a Sephira. It is not on the Tree of Life; that is, there is in reality no such thingand
And these five principles culminate in a sixth, Daath, Knowledge. But this is not really a principle; it contains in itself the germ of self-contradiction and so of self-destruction. It is a false principle: for, as soon as Knowledge is analysed, it breaks up into the irrational dust of the Abyss.[6]
DAATH. Knowledge, child of Chokmah and Binah in one sense, in the other the empty and structureless condition of Choronzon.Thus, (Regardie 2000 pp. 33-4:
The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge)does not actually refute what it, at first glance, appears to refute. (Note that the author Israel Regardie was the personal secretary of the author Aleister Crowley, and the two even lived together for a length of time.)
For She is omniform as Love and Death, the Great Sea whence all Life springs, and whose black womb re-absorbs all. She thus resumes in herself the duplex process of the Formula of Love under Will [...] Yet let it not be forgotten that though She be love, her function is but passive; she is the vehicle of the Word, of Chokmah, Wisdom, the All-Father, who is the Will of the All-One. And thus they err with grievous error and dire who prate of Love as the Formula of Magick; Love is unbalanced, void, vague, undirected, sterile nay, more, a very Shell, the prey of abject orts, demonic: Love must be "under will.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been meaning to take on one of your GA nominations for a while. Given the nature of this article, I'm going to pay special attention to criteria 1a and 3, and I expect to work through the article and its sources over the next few days before posting the initial review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
General:
Lead:
Definitions:
cognitive success or an epistemic contactcould be clarified.
the general characteristics of knowledge listed above– avoid self-referential phrases when possible. The sentence should still make sense if "listed above" is deleted.
differences concerning the standards of knowledge that people intend to uphold– clarify
Others seek a common core among diverse examples of knowledge, such as Paul Silva's "awareness first" epistemology or Barry Allen's definition of knowledge as "superlative artifactual performance".– This essentially name drops philosophers without context. Instead, consider a one or two sentence description of what "common core among diverse examples of knowledge" actually means.
that the believed fact caused the belief– Explain. Maybe this should be its own sentence?
Other approaches include defining it in regard to the cognitive role it plays in providing reasons for doing or thinking something or seeing it as the most general factive mental state operator.– This is a mouthful. Even with the footnote, it should probably be rewritten for clarity.
the JTB definition is a step in the right direction– This feels idiomatic
they often fall prey– Also idiomatic
Types
The distinctions between the major types are usually drawn based on the linguistic formulations used to express them– This is the sort of thing that would be better fit to introduce the Types section. It's not specifically about propositional knowledge, it's about the nature of the different types.
is either occurrent and dispositional– Is this "and" supposed to be an "or"?
It is usually agreed that mainly humans and maybe other higher animals possess propositional knowledge– This should be rewritten to be more precise. I would suggest treating humans and higher animals in two separate sentences. Also, it should be moved to the section on propositional knowledge.
The prime example of the relevant experience– Saying that something is "the prime example" comes across as subjective.
The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is closely related to two other distinctions– It goes on to name the distinctions without clearly defining them for the reader. But as I said below, this paragraph might be undue anyway.
Sources of knowledge:
Sources of knowledge are "rational capacities for knowledge"– This definition doesn't add much. Without more context, it's practically just a synonym for "sources".
This distinction is important– We shouldn't say in wikivoice what's important and what isn't. Instead, just describe what role it plays.
Structure of knowledge:
The expression "structure of knowledge" refers to– The article should talk about the concepts, not the expressions. Instead of "refers to", describe what the structure of knowledge is.
Value of knowledge:
The value of knowledge is an important topic in epistemology.– Begin by describing the basic premise without arguing that it's important.
On this view, it seems difficult to explain– We shouldn't state that something "seems" to be the case. Maybe it "can be difficult" or "it becomes difficult", but it's not Wikipedia's place to say that something "seems" a certain way.
Philosophical skepticism:
This position is quite radical– This is another example of "show, don't tell". Simply state that few philosophers defend it, and the reader will interpret that it is radical.
In various disciplines:
It is different from other forms of epistemology because of its unique subject matter.– This doesn't really say anything. "It's different because what it talks about is different." Either it should clarify how the subject matter is unique, or this sentence should be removed.
As Pope Francis points out– Avoid "points out". It implies that we're agreeing with whoever we're quoting.
An important finding is that– Don't preview the statement by describing it as important, just present the statement factually.
It often, but not exclusively, concerns a relation to a person.– I think this still puts too much emphasis on being about a person. Most of the examples on the IEP section of knowledge by acquaintance are not about people. It would be more accurate to say something to explain that it can be about anything that's experienced, perceived, or interacted with directly.
The term “situated knowledge” has two quite distinct disciplinary connections.
The two disciplinary fields have come together in studies of knowledge deriving from practice.... As I understand it, we have one general concept here that is applied in feminist literature in a specific way. This is also what [11] seems to state. Grossly oversimplified, the two parts of the section are "situated knowledge is defined as..." and "feminists claim that all knowledge is situated knowledge". Do you think the section works in its current, modified form? Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecks
|
---|
Spotchecks:
|
Broad coverage:
individuals who associate themselves with similar identities, like age-influenced, professional, religious, and ethnic identities, tend to embody similar forms of knowledge.– This feels like it would be way too important to just be one sentence.
Excessive detail:
The only real concern here is the amount of weight given to different epistemological schools of thought. Empiricism and rationalism, arguably the two most important, are given adequate coverage in sources of knowledge, though they could be distinguished more clearly. Some major schools of thought, such as Pragmatism and Relativism, are overlooked. Skepticism, on the other hand, is given its own section. Similarly, decolonial scholarship has its own section on par with science, religion, and anthropology despite being a WP:MINORASPECT of knowledge that's not widely accepted.
There seem to have been some disputes about the religion section in mid-February. Has this been resolved?
All images are Creative Commons or public domain. I suspect that the diagrams are ineligible for copyright and automatically in the public domain. Some of the images feel vaguely decorative, but I think they have sufficient relevance, especially since this is a broad concept article. Captions sufficiently describe context and relevance.
References
References
What the Gettier cases show is that this condition is insufficient to capture all the ways in which accidental truth is incompatible with knowledge.
Is there some way to suppress the {{ Artificial intelligence}} navbox that is transcluded in the excerpt in Knowledge § Artificial intelligence? This article is not part of a series of articles on AI, so that navbox shouldn't be transcluded here. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering to prepare this article for a featured article candidacy at some point. I think it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion in its current state because it leaves out some central topics. One point is that the article may need a short overview section of the history of knowledge. Another is that the article currently discusses skepticism but has very little information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism. An in-depth discussion would not be appropriate for this type of overview article but some more information would be preferable. It would also be good to have more information on knowledge management. This could maybe be combined with the discussion of knowledge representation at the end of the article.
At some points, the article gives too much detail. For example, the subsection Knowledge#Other distinctions has 7 subsubsection. I think a lot of summarizing could be done here. The text on philosophical skepticism is also quite detailed and could be shortened to leave more room for other schools of epistemology. These changes would ensure that the article does not grow too much overall despite the suggested additions.
I think it's not a good idea for featured articles to use excerpts, especially if they are from stubs like Meta-knowledge. So they would have to be replaced with regular text. Various other technical changes would be needed but they would mostly be minor changes.
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 slowly get started to implement them one at a time. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism. I would question the need for this, as the framing of rationalism versus empiricism as "schools" of epistemology seems too scholastically didactic and historical/outdated for an up-to-date general article on knowledge. Skepticism is different, because it is (considered abstractly) the antithesis or denial of knowledge. It may be true that the section on skepticism is too detailed, but I would advocate that skepticism here should not be considered one among various historical "schools" of epistemology (which is a framing that belongs in Epistemology) but as a more basic negation of some claim to knowledge or the possibility of knowledge. In short: there's no need in this article for a discussion of more "schools" of epistemology. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed until now that in March 2023
Phlsph7 started using {{
multiref2}} to separate multiple short citations in ref tags in this article. In the rendered HTML, the {{
multiref2}} template puts each short citation in a separate list item with the following CSS style: margin-bottom:.5em
. To my eye (and this may be matter of personal taste?) this is far too much white space between short citations, especially given that the standard spacing between reference list items is margin-bottom:.1em
, if I'm not mistaken. In other words, the display style is not compact enough. It seems to me that {{
multiref2}} is much better suited to separating long full citations instead of short citations.
I propose that instead of using {{ multiref2}} to separate short citations in ref tags we use semicolons instead. The difference can be seen in the second and third examples in Help:Shortened footnotes § Bundling citations. So, for example, the first instance would change from
<ref>{{multiref2 | {{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acCpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}} | {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QDqPIsiEXEC&pg=PT10 10]}} | {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HSE6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT75 75]}} | {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}} | {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}} | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}} }}</ref>
which renders as [1]
to
<ref>{{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acCpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}}; {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QDqPIsiEXEC&pg=PT10 10]}}; {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HSE6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT75 75]}}; {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}}; {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}}; {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}}</ref>
which renders as [1]
This use of semicolons followed by a period after the last short citation also seems more stylistically congruent with the {{ sfn}} template, because each single instance of {{ sfn}} is terminated by a period in the reference list, whereas references that use {{ multiref2}} are currently not similarly terminated.
If there is consensus for this change, I am willing to do the conversion of the existing references. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{harvnb ... }}</ref>
. The latter is how I used to create shortened footnotes before I discovered the {{
sfn}} template. It required manually naming repeated references (handled automatically by {{
sfn}}), but that was easy to do since only 9 refs needed to be named.Allwood 2013, p. 69–72, Anthropology of Knowledge, repeat the chapter title even though the full reference template already includes the chapter. This is not the case for all location infos, as in
Hill 2009, § Idiosyncratic Views of Knowledge. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)