Talk:Epistemology

Featured articleEpistemology is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2025.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 16, 2025Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
March 14, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 10, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to one school of epistemology, nobody knows anything?
Current status: Featured article

Introductory comparison between empiricists and rationalists

A sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction: "Empiricists regard sense experience as the primary source of knowledge, whereas rationalists view reason as an additional source." Taking that at face value, one could assume there's no reason for empiricists and rationalists to disagree. I think it should be rewritten more sharply:

“Empiricists regard sensory experience as the primary source of knowledge, whereas rationalists view reason and innate ideas as primary, with empirical experience playing a secondary role.”

It isn't that empiricists deny any contribution from reason after the fact of, or validated by, empirical evidence; obviously Locke or Berkely or Hume wouldn't have thought so. I wonder, however, if "playing a secondary role" is the best way to express this. Eugene Craig Campbell (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eugene and thanks for raising this point. I'm not sure that it is true that rationalists deny that sense experience is a primary source of knowledge (except, perhaps, for the extreme rationalism mentioned in footnote [h]). Oversimplifying it, one might say that both empiricists and rationalists accept sense experience as a primary source but only rationalists accept reason as one more primary source. Empiricists agree that reason has a role to play, but not as a primary source of knowledge. There are some challenges to summarizing this debate in one sentence so we should be careful about overstating the difference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Empiricists hold that all knowledge can be traced back to experience, whereas rationalists believe some knowledge can be gained independently from experience"? I think this gets at the key point more clearly. Sense experience is the original source of all knowledge for empiricists, not just a primary source among others. (Obviously, reason can expand knowledge for empiricists, but that depends on reason acting upon knowledge already gained from experience.) Shapeyness (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a simplified reformulation of your suggestion. Feel free to tinker with it if necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. IAWW (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Epistemology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've been wanting to review this for a while, but hadn't found the courage to commit to the challenge. I have read several of your articles before and found them very well written. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phlsph7, I have started the review below. I have a major scope point I would like to sort out before moving forward. IAWW (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello It is a wonderful world, I really appreciate you taking on this challenging task! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world: Do you have more comments? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) checkY

Lead

No concerns :)

Definition

The term is also used in a slightly different sense to refer not to the branch of philosophy but to a particular position within that branch: On my first read through of this sentence, I thought it meant there was one specific viewpoint within epistemology called "epistemology" or similar. Changing "particular" to "philosophers" would fix this ambiguity. IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used a slightly different formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it determines which beliefs fulfill the standards: I don't think it determines what "beliefs" fulfill the standards, but rather whether the method of acquisition of the belief fulfills the standard.

You can probably put it either way. I added the formulation about forms of belief acquisition. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or epistemic goals of knowledge: The sentence starts with "This way", which refers to the idea of evaluating methods of belief acquisition. But "epistemic goals of knowledge" is a different subject that can be used to evaluate beliefs on? If this is the case, then it seems to conflict with the phrasing of "This way"? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the expression "This way". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "literally" to "literal translation". IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

earlier philosophers did not explicitly label their theories as epistemology: Would "epistemological" be more accurate here? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think either one works. I kept the current formulation because it wouldn't be clear otherwise what the following "it" refers to. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge

Suggest linking "justification"

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood on a social level, knowledge is a characteristic of a group of people that share ideas, understanding, or culture in general. The term can also refer to information stored in documents, such as "knowledge housed in the library" or knowledge stored in computers in the form of the knowledge base of an expert system: Are these other meanings also of significant enough interest to epistemologists, or are they mostly used in other fields? If they are of interest to epistemologists, I think the text should say so. If not, I'm not sure they should be included.

They are not mainstream but I think they are worth mentioning nonetheless. I shortened the text and tried to clarify the relation to epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are certain limits to human understanding that are responsible for inevitable ignorance: For neutrality, would it be better to attribute this to consensus rather than state it as a fact? I am not well-versed enough in the subject to tell.

There are disagreements about where exactly those limits lie, but I don't think there are disagreements that there are limits. For example, there is a reason why no single human knows the first billion digits of pi. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whether fallible beliefs about everyday affairs: Fallible beliefs might not be about everyday affairs

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types

Suggest linking "declarative sentence"

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theoretical knowledge: I'm not sure the article "a" should be here, leaving "It is theoretical knowledge", or maybe "It is a type of theoretical knowledge"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe consider linking "theoretical", since it is essential that the reader understands the precise definition of this word or it doesn't have much meaning.

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is use-independent since it is not tied to one specific purpose: This doesn't mean much to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, because it is not an entirely trivial exercise to conceive of a type of knowledge that is use-dependent without already knowing about the other types that have not been explained yet. I suggest adding a short contrast such as "unlike other types of knowledge such as knowledge of skills". IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mental representation that relies on concepts and ideas to depict reality: The source I checked (Morrison 2005, p. 371) says that the mental representations "embody concepts, principles, ideas", not that they are separate entities where the "mental representation relies on the concepts". I'm also not sure about the word "depict" here, it suggests a detailed communication, while anything communicated through concepts is by definition abstract. IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the terms have these metaphysical implications in this context but I changed them to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relatively sophisticated creatures: Relative to what? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as a result of experiental contact: Typo, I assume you mean "experiential" I am only not fixing it myself because maybe you mean "experimental"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To know something by acquaintance means to be familiar with it as a result of experiental contact: This may not technically be true as it assumes there is no such thing as innate knowledge by acquaintance? It may be true but seems counterintuitive to me, I would assume for example that infants have some innate familiarity with food. IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's often presented this way but you raise a valid point. I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples are knowing the city of Perth: I think this should be more specific that this is not the same thing as "knowing that the city of Perth exists". Maybe replace "knowing" with "familiarity"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, but I'm not sure that "knowing the city of Perth" can mean "knowing that the city of Perth exists". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "empirical" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A priori knowledge is knowledge of non-empirical facts and does not depend on evidence from sensory experience. It belongs to fields such as mathematics and logic, like knowing that 2+2 equals 4: Grammatically, the example refers to mathematics and logic, but it clearly refers to the previous sentence. You could move "like knowing that 2+2=4" to the sentence before to fix this. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Suggest linking "infallible" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Value

For example, knowledge of a disease helps a doctor cure their patient, and knowledge of when a job interview starts helps a candidate arrive on time: I think two examples is a little excessive here. At least for me it was one of the easier concepts to understand. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 2nd example. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plato already considered this problem: "Already" is weird here. No chronology has been established. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

more trust in knowledge than in mere true beliefs: I think "true opinions" would be better than "true beliefs" here, true beliefs could technically be knowledge. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A different response says that knowledge has intrinsic value, meaning that it is good in itself independent of its usefulness: : This seems to contradict the first sentence of the paragraph which was stated as fact. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the paragraph only presents a questions: Of particular interest to epistemologists is the question of whether knowledge is more valuable than a mere opinion that is true. The other sentences in the paragraph talk about instrumental value. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant to refer to the first sentence of the section, not paragraph. The value of knowledge is the worth it holds by expanding understanding and guiding action seems to contradict A different response says that knowledge has intrinsic value, meaning that it is good in itself independent of its usefulness. IAWW (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The first sentence of the section doesn't say whether the value in question is intrinsic or instrumental, but this is a technical point that most readers probably won't consider. I clarified the last sentence to get the idea better across and show the contrast with true opinion. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belief and truth

According to this view, beliefs are representations of what the world is like: "world" -> "universe" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This view says that: I think this wording is too general introduce a specific example. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

of much more complex psychological processes: It would be cool if there was an example here IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but unfortunately there may not be a simple example since these more complex processes might be too complex to describe. Eliminativists about beliefs often just say that it's more complex without giving an exact alternative description of all the neurological processes involved. I changed our formulation slightly to clarify the idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough IAWW (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and a component of propositional knowledge: Would "attribute" be better wording than "component" here? It wasn't mentioned as a possible component of knowledge in the analysis section earlier. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "attribute" could also work, but "component" is the more common term. The beginning of the analysis section talks about the traditional analysis and belief as one of the "three components" of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies again, I should have been more clear I was talking about the last sentence of the section "Truth plays a central role in epistemology as a goal of cognitive processes and a component of propositional knowledge". IAWW (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think either one works. I changed it to "attribute". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

The epistemological definition of justification was not intuitive to me when I was reading the analysis of knowledge section. I assumed it would leave no room for justified false beliefs. This meant I struggled to understand the section until I realized this false assumption. I think linking "justified" there would have helped. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems "propositional justification", "doxastic justification" and "basing relation" are notable enough to be redlinked? IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added redirects instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Looks good :)

Other concepts

You could link to "bloodstains examined by forensic analysts" to "Bloodstain pattern analysis" IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While propositional knowledge is the main topic in epistemology, some theorists focus on understanding rather than knowledge: It's unclear whether you are trying to contrast understanding with knowledge, or just propositional knowledge. If it is meant to contrast with all knowledge, I think it would also be helpful to better distinguish how it differs from non-propositional knowledge. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism, fallibilism, and relativism

Looks good :)

Empiricism and rationalism

Some empiricists express this view by stating that the mind is a blank slate: I'm not sure whether this is intended as an analogy or whether they actually believe this? If the former is true I suggest removing "by stating that" and replacing with something like "by analogizing" IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to some rationalists, the mind possesses inborn ideas which it can access without the help of the senses: These ideas are inborn and do not come from reason right? If so, that contradicts the previous sentence? IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could say that they are born into reason. The main point, according to this view, is that if they don't come from the senses then they must belong to reason. I slightly changed to formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundationalism and coherentism

non-basic beliefs constitute the superstructure: They are not literally a superstructure, maybe add "can be seen as"? IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to coherentism, justification is a holistic aspect determined by the whole system of beliefs, which resembles an interconnected web: Same as above. Suggest changing to something like "which can be visualized as an interconnected web". IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "resembles". I think we can leave it open how concrete or abstract this resemblence is. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internalism and externalism

"Externalism rejects this view, saying that at least some relevant factors are external to the individual. This means that the cognitive perspective of the individual is less central while other factors, specifically the relation to truth, become more important."

  • It's unclear what relation to truth the sentence is referring to. Adding the word "belief's" to make "specifically the belief's relation to truth" clears this up.
  • The belief's relation to truth does not just become more important, because internalism does not consider this factor at all. Rather, the belief's relation to truth is considered as a factor in externalism, while it is not considered at all in internalism. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self to reread this section later. I'm finding it hard to fully grasp these two concepts based on just reading this section. It's hard to tell if this is due to the text being unclear, or whether the text is doing the best it can in it's limited space. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rewrite the 2nd paragraph to clarify the idea. I agree that presenting these views is difficult. One reason is that externalists disagree with each other about the details. So the challenge is to express the ideas in a way that the different subgroups would agree on. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Suggest linking "illusions" IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sees the pursuit of knowledge as an ongoing process guided by common sense and experience while always open to revision.: This doesn't help understand pragmatist epistemology because it is also true of fallibilism IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the part about common sense and experience are part of fallibilism in its minimal definition. I added a sentence to give some more details. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"unique particulars" is quite a technical term. I had to look it up to understand it's meaning in philosophy. Could it be linked or omitted in favour of less technical language? IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyāya epistemology discusses the causal relation between the knower and the object of knowledge: This is quite vague. What direction is the causal relationship? And, how can a causal relationship be established "through reliable knowledge-formation processes"? IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated this sentence and the next one. Have a look if it is clearer now. Unfortunately, we don't have much space for this particular view to go more into detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how there is a causal relationship, but also understand that explaining that may take too much room. IAWW (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African epistemology is rooted in African ontology. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of reality in the form of a continuum between knowing subject and known object, and [it] understands knowledge as a holistic phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational aspects and is not limited to the physical domain.: Added an "it" to satisfy WP:CINS IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I split it into two separate sentences instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "continuum" be linked? I find it a hard concept to understand as someone who has never been exposed to African ontology before. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branches

Suggest linking "epistemology of mathematics" IAWW (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we currently don't have a corresponding article and I'm not a big fan of red links. We could link it to Philosophy of mathematics, but it is more about metaphysics than about epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, I'll leave it up to you. IAWW (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "knowledge of ultimate reality"? IAWW (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "knowledge of the basic structure of reality", which is hopefully more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can "laws of logic" be linked? IAWW (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fallacy theory. Fallacies are faulty arguments based on incorrect reasoning.: This explains what fallacies are, but what is fallacy theory? IAWW (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it is just means something like "the study of fallacies". I replaces "fallacy theory" with "fallacies" to avoid this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

The Hellenistic schools began to arise in the 4th century BCE. The Epicureans had: If the reader is not familiar with the relation between Hellenistic schools and the Epicureans then these seem to be unconnected ideas. IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did nothing worth mentioning happen from ~200 BCE to ~800 CE? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellenistic schools lasted well into the first few centuries of the common era. I added a sentence on Neoplatonism to further close the temporal gap. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) tried to find a middle position: Do the sources really support that he specifically set out with the purpose of finding a middle ground? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Thorpe 2014 p. 5: In the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Kant offers a middle ground between rationalism and empiricism. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the alternatives considered was reliabilism: By whom? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned one of the authors. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add when epistemology was first cantegorised as its own field? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in the paragraph on etymology in the section "Definition" and the footnote there. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Could Logology be given a definition, to conform with the other articles in the list? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first letter of the definition of Epistemological pluralism isn't capitalized. I'm not sure where the annotated link description comes from? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has a short description then it is taken from there. I added a simpler short description. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Magenta clockclock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) checkY

No issues with link rot and the references are well formatted.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) checkY

I find it simply incredible how you have managed to integrate this amount of high quality sources. Amazing work!

Almost all sources are books or journals from reliable publishers. I don't see any issues here. IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) checkY

Hi Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), apologies for the wait. I have had a busy week but should have made time for it on the weekend. Spot check is below. I found no issues and am happy with all your changes above, which means it is ready to pass! Well done for tackling such a large article, it was a beast even to just review!

Spot check based on this version:

[5]: checkY

[16]: checkY

[25]: checkY

[35]: checkY

[48]: checkY

[67]: checkY

[68]: checkY

[88]: checkY

[125]: checkY

[132a]: checkY

[142]: checkY

[168]: checkY

[169]: checkY

[197]: checkY

[209]: checkY

[238]: checkY

[251]: checkY

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Magenta clockclock

Earwig finds no too copyvio issues. Will check further on spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) checkY

I am a bit concerned that this article goes into too much detail on the central concepts. This article is about epistemology, not the concepts it studies. Any explanation of the concepts relevant to the field should therefore be directly relevant to how epistemology interacts with other concepts, or be essential to understanding the definition.

Unfortunately I cannot find any featured articles on a scientific or philosophical discipline to compare with.

I think the counterargument for inclusion would go something along the lines of "explaining the concepts increases the understanding of epistemology", but beyond being able to understand the definition, I don't think it does?

I think this is the most un-intuitive point I have ever made on a review, so I could well be wrong. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that the article did not properly clarify the purpose of this section so I added a short introductory paragraph and changed some formulations. The section is not primarily a preparatory exercise to help readers understand what comes afterward. Instead, the study of these concepts is part of epistemology itself. For example, the analysis, value, and sources of knowledge take center stage in many discussions both as epistemological topics in their own right and for the effects they have on other topics.
There are different ways to split these topics into sections and one could do so without a section called "Central concepts". However, I think it's a good approach in our case, which is also found in high-quality sources. For example, Part 1 of the Routledge Companion to Epistemology is called "Foundational Concepts" with one chapter dedicated to each major concept. The articles "Epistemology" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also have separate sections or subsections dedicated to these topics. Of course, that doesn't mean that everything that is currently in our section absolutely needs to be there. Please let me know if specific details get too much weight, then I'll try to summarize them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fine justification. IAWW (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for similar articles with sections on basic concepts, see Ontology and Logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable (Criterion 5) checkY

Media checkY

Tags (Criterion 6a) checkY

Captions (Criterion 6b) checkY

I think most of these should be cited, even if they are supported by the text. For the ease of anyone looking to verify. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the corresponding references. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the captions have full stops after the citations. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, they are displayed normally. For example, the caption of Russell's images is The distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance plays a central role in the epistemology of Bertrand Russell.[24] Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

File:David Hume 2.jpg says it has been "superseded" and should be replaced with File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg. This isn't something I have seen before but I assume it is better to replace it. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quality of the 2nd image is better so I used it instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to some rationalists, the mind possesses inborn ideas which[that] it can access without the help of the senses: In American English, "that" is preferred over "which" for restrictive clauses. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a non-restrictive clause instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if there could be images of the superstructure and/or interconnected web visualizations presented in the Foundationalism and coherentism section. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To generalize the above point, I think this article could do with more media which illustrate the concepts discussed in the text. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do about it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that according to one school of epistemology, nobody knows anything?

References

  1. ^ Moreland, J. P.; Craig, William Lane (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-8308-2694-0.
  2. ^ Hookway, C. J. (2005). "Skepticism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 838. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
  3. ^ Bergmann, Michael (2021). Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition. Oxford University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-19-265357-4.
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Peer review

Epistemology

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DoctorWhoFan91

I have given the article a semi-comprehensive read on all aspects(when you take it to FAC, I'm open to being pinged for a deeper review), and I feel it meets all the FA criteria except 1a)(well-written), and as an extension of that, kind of 1b)(comprehensive) too

Basically, while I think all the relevant info is more or less there, with the correct depth, media and refs, I think the article lacks a feel of how the field has developed. It just feels more like an enumeration of concepts and schools of thoughts and less of how they relate and came to be. To illustrate

  • History- It describes the history of the topic in three regions in ancient times (also, could be under a separate subheading), and not how they occasionally came in contact with each other(for eg- the indo-greek kingdoms and the influence of Hellenic Buddhism). There is an overview on medieval thought after, without describing how they emerged. Modern times show some relations, but it could also be better.
    I made several changes to indicate how the different positions are related to each other. The difficulty is that the relations are complex. To properly explain how each position historically evolved would require a significant expansion. These details are probably better discussed in child articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I didn't include the influence of Buddhism on Hellenistic epistemology because this does not get much attention in the overview sources that I'm aware of. For example, the detailed articles on ancient Greek skepticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([1]) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy([2]) each have only one sentence speculating about this relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schools of thought-
    • subheading 1- could be rewritten to contrast and relate the three more
      I adjusted the paragraph on relativism to clarify this. The paragraph on fallibilism already explains the relation to skepticism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • subheading 4- I think a better flow would be internalism, evidentalism, externalism, reliabilism, virtue
      Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • subheading 5- these could be in more depth and greater emphasis on how they are similar and different from the others, plus, at least for Indian philosophy (so probably also true for non-Indian ones as well), I have seen academics contrasting and comparing it with the Greco-Roman one
      I did this for some schools, but for many others, there is no particularly interesting relation that could be explained in a single sentence. I'm open to concrete ideas on how to connect them.
      I'm not sure how much background in Greco-Roman epistemology we can assume for the comparison with Indian philosophy to be helpful to the reader. Especially for brief characterizations like the one here, it may be better to explain Indian epistemology in positive terms rather than focusing on how it differs from Greco-Roman epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      True on the positive rather than comparison terms, but some might still be good- like it might just be me, but it sort of feels like it is treated as its own separate thing, rather than part of a field. Like there would be some schools of thought that are very common to non-Indian ones, but also some that are unique. Basically, a greater overview on how different times and places have influenced the field- some in common to all/most times-places, some unique to a single/few. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a footnote to give a comparison. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Central concepts- a little bit more here and there, on how the perceptions and emphasis on them has changed.
    I added a few remarks to clarify the historical context. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition- maybe some info about the development of its definition as well?
    This is discussed in footnote [c].

To summarise, a very well-written article, with no major points missing, but that could be made much better with more information. Hope you will make it a FA, your articles are always a delight! Phlsph7. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorWhoFan91, I appreciate all the helpful comments! I made several changes to the article, I hope I was able to address the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7, looks good, you are going in the right direction. You have made sufficient changes as per suggestions, and you should also add info anywhere else the prose seems to be in a similar way as the above mentioned examples. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through the article one more time before the nomination to make a few more adjustments. Personally, I prefer to concentrate the historical discussion in the history section and focus the other sections on their topics rather than the historical context. However, I know that some editors disagree so it's probably about finding a middle path that works for everyone. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is good. True, maybe I'm just looking at the topic differently- I'm sure you'll find the best middle path. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shapeyness

Hey Phlsph7, saw this was up for peer review and thought I'd add some drive-by comments: the main problem I see at the moment is that some parts of the article feel a bit disjointed, particularly the Others subsection of Schools of Thought. I haven't looked at the overview sources but it might be worth re-going over the structure they use to get ideas where some of these could go/be grouped together. There are some other small organisational things that seem strange to me as well: I would consider naturalized epistemology more of a viewpoint or school of thought than a branch of epistemology (I did see at least one source calling it a branch, but I would be surprised if many or most sources do), and I find it strange for skepticism and relativism to be the first section in the schools of thought section given they aren't mainstream positions (skepticism is central to epistemology but more as a problem to be overcome than a position generally held). I can give more detailed comments if that would be more useful, but these were some of the main things I noticed from a quick look. Shapeyness (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shapeyness and thanks for your input! I tried to address the disjointedness problem of the subsection "School of thought#Others" by moving some things around to indicate a few connections. The connections are not always important or easy to explain so it would be hard to solve the problem entirely.
I think the sources on naturalized epistemology are divided about whether to categorize it as a school of thought or a branch of epistemology. Depending on what we emphasize, we could probably put it in either section. The presentation currently focuses more on the method than the theoretical claims associated with it, which fits better in the branches-section. With some adjustments to the text, we could also include it in the schools-section instead. I don't feel strongly either way.
Global skepticism is a rare position today, but local skepticisms are quite common, like moral skepticism and religious skepticism. Additionally, skepticism is relevant as a methodology to test how certain a knowledge claim is. Some presentations of epistemology, like Crumley 2009, start with skepticism, so at least we are in good company. Relativism is mainly here rather than in the subsection "Others" because it fits into the context.
If you have the time, I would be quite interested in more detailed comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: I was thinking about how to further address the disjointedness of the schools of thought section and the general structure of the article and came up with this possible alternative structure (there are no changes to content, everything is just rearranged into different sections). I think it's more in line with the way other overviews present epistemology as a subject and has the advantage of lining up with general definitions of epistemology (e.g. "nature, origin, and limits of knowledge"). However, it would be a pretty major structural change for what is already a GA so I am presenting it as an idea that I think would improve the article more than something that I think the article would need to become an FA. What do you think? It would also be possible to keep the current structure but take more modest amendments from my suggestion, particularly surrounding the schools of thought/approaches sections - let me know if any suggestions like that would be more useful.

That's an interesting way to restructure the article! I think it would be a feasible alternative and the fact that there are no changes to content makes it easy to implement. At the same time, it is a quite radical change to address a problem that does not seem to be very serious. With this type of major change, there is often the danger of displacing problems or introducing new ones. For example, the new main section "Other concepts" appears to be more of an afterthought that suffers similar problems and downplays the importance of the concepts of belief and truth, which often get separate sections or subsections in overview sources, like the IEP article "Epistemology" and the Routledge Companion to Epistemology.
I used some of your ideas for an alternative proposal that remains closer to the original structure. The section "Branches" is renamed to "Branches and approaches" and the contents of the subsection "Schools of thought#Others" are moved there. This corresponds closely to your section "Approaches to epistemology". It now has a subsection "Knowledge in particular domains", similar to the one in your proposal at a different location. The section "Schools of thought" is renamed to "Major schools of thought" to indicate that its scope is more limited now. The rest of the article stays as it is. There are a few more details to address but I think we could make it work. Do you think it would be an improvement? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: yes that looks good and is similar to the more modest change ideas I had. The version linked above was quite a radical change so definitely a longshot but I do think it has things going for it. They are mainly presentational benefits though and it comes with its own downsides like you say. Anyway, it's a shame that "Knowledge in particular domains" doesn't have a more natural place to live but I can't see anywhere better and that's a relatively ok location I think. Shapeyness (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I implemented the proposal. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phlsph7! I think you've addressed all my comments, just one small follow-up below. Shapeyness (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate all your insightful suggestions! I hope the article is ready for FAC now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here are some more standard peer review comments, which I think you were more looking for. Hopefully they are useful! Shapeyness (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The definition focuses on knowledge, which is the right thing to do since knowledge is the central topic of epistemology. But to avoid defining it too narrowly, maybe it is worth adding a little caveat such as "and related concepts such as justification etc". This would cover approaches to epistemology that centre other concepts like understanding, wisdom or virtues.
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the skepticism section, external world skepticism and the problem of other minds are probably worth a mention since the article is not overlong and these are particularly important varieties of skepticism.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agrippa's trilemma might be worth a mention too (in the foundationalism & coherentism section) but I'm less convinced about this than the previous bullet point.
    I add a short explanation to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infinitism presents alternative perspective" should be "Infinitism presents an alternative perspective" - should there be a mention that this is a minority view? I'm conflicted since it is very much in the minority but maybe it's better to simply describe the ideas and not focus on how widespread they are.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Virtue epistemology is another type of externalism and is sometimes understood as a form of reliabilism." Maybe this is just a semantic thing but I don't know if virtue epistemology is "sometimes understood as a form of reliabilism" - it is more that some approaches to virtue epistemology are broadly reliabilist in flavour while others are responsibilist/Aristotelian.
    I think you are right. It's not the best place to get into these details so I removed the part about reliabilism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relatedly, I would suggest adding something like this: "Suggested examples include faculties like vision, memory, and introspection, and character traits like open-mindedness." Shapeyness (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the ethics of belief as "covering the interrelation between epistemology and ethics" - does it? It kind of does in the sense that it investigates if there can be moral reasons for belief. But my understanding is that the "ethics" in the "ethics of belief" is a broader idea and refers more to the investigation of normativity and norms in epistemology, both moral and epistemic.
    I reformulated it to "exploring the intersection of epistemology and ethics" but I'm also open to other formulations. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distinct areas of epistemology are dedicated to specific sources of knowledge. Examples are the epistemology of perception, the epistemology of memory, and the epistemology of testimony." I think all of these are already covered elsewhere so it might be worth simply cutting this as a lone sentence.
    I think it may be good to mention this point in some form in this section so the information about these branches is present in the branches-section. Maybe it can be included in another paragraph but I'll wait for your feedback on the restructuring proposal before I give it a try. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is the case, for example..." probably a better example could be used here, e.g. one that is more direct and explicit.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which the soul remembers what it already knew before" knew before what?
    I reformulated it to avoid getting into the reincarnation stuff. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or as "ideas of reflection", which the mind creates by reflecting on ideas of sense" I think this is slightly off - my understanding is that the reflection here is reflection on the inner working of one's own mind. The distinction is more to do with whether attention is directed outwards towards the world or inwards towards the processes of the mind, and less to do with the derivativeness of the idea (i.e. whether one type of idea is created from another). For example, emotion is an idea of reflection but it is not necessarily generated by reflecting on ideas of the external world.
    The sources seem to be divided on this. From Hamlyn 2006: Ideas of reflection result from the operation of the mind itself upon ideas of the sense.. From Uzgalis 2024: Experience is of two kinds, sensation and reflection. ... Some ideas we get only from sensation, some only from reflection and some from both.. Maybe there is a way to reconcile these views. I opted for the formulation about "reflecting on its own activities" since ideas of sense are part of these activities. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On logical positivism, is it worth mentioning that they denied metaphysical knowledge?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is already incredibly well-done, I found it quite hard to find issues that needed addressing!

Foucault

Kind of surprised that a Wikipedia article on epistemology doesn't have a single mention of or citation to Michel Foucault. I'm going on vacation in... like... a day and a half (already broken out the vacation wardrobe and everything) so I probably don't have time to draft new copy for a week or two but, like, Foucault is one of the most widely cited academics of the 20th century and epistemology was his specialty. He is absolutely due at least some mention. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simonm223 and thanks for your comment. You are right that Foucault's thought was influential in certain areas of 20th-century philosophy, but I don't think it had much influence on epistemology in particular. I checked a few overview sources on epistemology in general like Truncellito, Crumley II 2009, and Blaauw & Pritchard 2005: I don't think any of them mention Foucault, so at least we are in good company. Maybe some information on Foucault could be added to child articles on more narrow epistemological topics, but this overview article may not be the right place. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very odd not to at least include mention of Power-knowledge on this page. It's a pretty significant divergence from other Epistemological discourses and one that has had wide-ranging influence on multiple disciplines including philosophy, history, geography and sociology especially. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to briefly mention Foucault. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epistemology