Epistemology was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
 (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)Reply[reply]
Our article is on epistemology in general. The section on Bayesian epistemology gives a succinct overview of the Bayesian approach to epistemology. According to your argument, PAC is at best vaguely related to Bayesian epistemology in that both talk about probabilities. This is not a sufficient reason to include it in such an overview. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current section on Bayesian epistemology is vague and imprecise. PAC tries to answer the question "what is knowledge?" with "knowledge is info that the person considers to be PAC". E.g. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, but most of it is PAC at best. I thought of PAC learning as a topic within Bayesian epistemology rather than related to it. I guess that needs sourcing though, since idk how practitioners think of it.
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]