Talk:Epistemology

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Epistemology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 31 days

Epistemology has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 9, 2006	[article nominee]	Listed
February 25, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Philosophy / Epistemology / Science

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

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

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Additional information:

	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

WikiProject Religion

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

	Religion portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Skepticism

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital

(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Version 1.0 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> \| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is Uncategorized.

This article is a vital article.

WikiProject History of Science

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This subject is featured in the Outline of epistemology, which is incomplete and needs further development.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

PAC learning[edit]

[1] (reversion) This topic does seem to belong in an article about theories of knowledge, and the Bayesian epistemology section seemed like the most appropriate place, since PAC learning is about probabilistic estimates. The wiki about it is only about the AI part of the topic, but Valiant's book treats it as an explanation of biological evolution. I haven't read much of the book yet though, so leaving this here for now. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book review (parking link here for possible later use) 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Epistemology and AI 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[2] (About learning theory). This looks good, and discusses PAC learning. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Epistemic insouciance (APA blog). Refers to article in journal of philosophical research, will try to look at that. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:97FC (talk) 03:46, 16 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 logic[edit]

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]

Polyani?[edit]

Am I the only person surprised that Michael Polyani isn't mentioned at all? 2601:246:5700:3570:211D:D7AA:13B9:834E kbachler (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you mean Michael Polanyi. Neither the epistemology article in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor the one in the Encyclopedia Britannica mention his name. This indicates that he is not among the most important philosophers in relation to the topic of epistemology at large. But Polanyi already gets mentioned in our knowledge section. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Larrys Text/Epistemology" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Larrys Text/Epistemology and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Larrys Text/Epistemology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Henry and the barn façades" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Henry and the barn façades and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Henry and the barn façades until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]