Talk:Epistemology/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)

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)

Hello It is a wonderful world, I really appreciate you taking on this challenging task! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Lead

Will read after the article.

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

Knowledge

Suggest linking "justification"

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

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)

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)

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

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

Types

Suggest linking "declarative sentence"

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

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)

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)

That is a fine justification. IAWW (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, for similar articles with sections on basic concepts, see Ontology and Logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Media clock

Captions (Criterion 6b) clock

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)

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

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)

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