Talk:Epistemology/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The new paragraph on Descartes

Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period. Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular, but both debates have been related and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology. Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths. In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato. However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism". In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.

References specific to notes

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevancy

@Dominic Mayers: The time and effort you have invested in this section are inspiring and your recent adjustments solve the problem of the initial version. As the text in the paragraph suggests, the way the topic of the paragraph is related to epistemology seems to be rather complicated and indirect. Let's see if I can get it straight:

1. Contemporary epistemology is part of epistemology
2. The internal-external debate in epistemology belongs to contemporary epistemology
3. The internal-external debate in epistemology is not the same as the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind but there are relations between them
4. Various arguments are used in the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind
5. Some of these argument refer to Descartes' dualism

It seems that this chain of connection is not made in a single source that is cited but several sources need to be combined to sketch out this path. Are you sure that this rather distant relation justifies adding a full paragraph to a wide overview article like this one (see WP:PROPORTION)? This issue could be avoided by instead adding this discussion to an article that has the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind as a main topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Descartes is such an important figure that I do not see a need to prove the relevancy of a paragraph on Descartes in that section about how contemporary epistemology is historically informed. At the same time, claiming that Descartes had epistemological questions or finding contemporary epistemological concepts in Descartes' philosophy is something else. It is, in Barry Stroud's terminology, a "historically 'oriented' contemporary epistemology", a very different and controversial subject: many say that it is incorrect to use past philosophies in that manner. I am not saying that we should not present all pertinent view points on this, but it should be covered elsewhere, not in that section. This section is different. It must consider Descartes' philosophy as standardly seen by historians and present sources that discuss how this could inform, if at all, contemporary epistemology. I am not trying to infer that Descartes' dualism informed contemporary epistemology. On the contrary, contemporary epistemology is centred around justification and there are sources that say that Descartes was far away from contemporary justification concerns. So, the paragraph is just being plain direct about it. There is no OR at all, but I know that is not your concern. It is relevancy. In view of the importance of Descartes, the question whether it has informed contemporary epistemology is relevant. Let me add that I looked at Descartes' skepticism to see if it could have informed contemporary epistemology. Sources such as Popkin explain that Descartes used skepticism in a very special manner, not to deny knowledge of the laws of transitory external phenomena, but to gain certainty in the mind side. It is paradoxical to use skepticism to gain certainty, but that is what sources say. Descartes' argument is that God gave us a priori knowledge and skepticism is a systematic way to unveil this gift of God. No source explains how this part of Descartes' view might have informed contemporary epistemology or even philosophy of mind and I guess it did not.It is not that sources completely ignore this. For example, Robert Audi wrote "... Descartes’s well-known denial that God would allow such a world, but I cannot pursue it here." On the other hand, we have sources that explain how Descartes' dualism informed the internalist/internalist debate. The more I think about it, the content of that paragraph is not that Descartes has informed contemporary epistemology, but that he has not, except indirectly through the externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind. This is clearly relevant in that section and interesting. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Phlsph7 again. And this whole new excursus here is nothing more than WP:OR in my view. Descartes was no skeptic at all. He recognized the challenge of Skepticism (which is an ever present challenge which Epistemology cannot avoid), and tried to provide paths for the achievement of knowledge and certainty, which are the goals of Epistemology. I went through the Britannica entry on Epistemology again, and it is overall much better that what we have here, in my view. There is no mention in it whatsoever of the internal-external debate in so-called "comtemporary epistemology" as far as I can see. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The part about Descartes' skepticism is from Popkin, which you suggested. Moreover, the paragraph, referring to Popkin, says what you say: Descartes found his base for certainty in the cogito. You further say that Descartes had the same goal as epistemology, but if by "epistemology" here you mean contemporary epistemology, this is controversial and requires attribution and it's not the subject of that section anyway. This section is not about whether or not contemporary epistemological questions or concepts can be located in past philosophies. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it is a big mess, in my view, nothing else unfortunately. Simple misunderstandings. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I am going to take into account what was said here. The paragraph seems to fight in a weak manner (by referring to philosophy of mind) to say that Descartes informed contemporary epistemology. I think that Phlsph7 correctly noticed that. There is something interesting to be said about the question how Descartes informed contemporary epistemology, but that one thing (the indirect connection through philosophy of mind) is only a part of it and not the first thing to be said: though I still think it is very interesting and relevant, it must be given its just place. Kornblith's view point that it did not inform naturalized epistemology is also interesting on its own. Note that he did not say that Descartes did not inform contemporary epistemology at large, because that would be a very big statement to make: there might be contemporary epistemologists that take a metaphysical view similar to Descartes' view based on apriori given to us by God (renamed as Nature). Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

We can proceed with the central concepts and see what context is needed

The context that was moved at the end might not be what people in the contemporary epistemological bubble expect, but Wikipedia is not the place to reproduce bubbles that occur in academic circles. I mean, one might feel that the section on central concepts is self sufficient and does not need context, but that is because it is presented as a bubble that stands on its own. It presents a view of analytic philosophy on knowledge, in particular, the justified true belief view, as if it was the only view. This is not what Wikipedia must do. The whole point of having a context is to change that. But, we can start with the central concepts and try to present them in a way that acknowledges the specific place contemporary epistemology has within its context. Will see how it goes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that articles should not ignore alternative views. But as I see it, our main job is usually to present the dominant views as discussed in the reliable academic sources. That doesn't mean that critical voices stating alternative views are ignored or silenced. But they don't receive the same attention in terms of coverage and placement. So whatever bubble the academic discourse may be in, it's not our responsibility to burst it or to protect our readers from the dominant views in it. The discussion of justified true belief and alternative characterizations is not at the beginning but found in a later section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I find annoying that you suggest that I want to protect our readers from the dominant views in the subject—I am not even sure what you mean by this and that makes it even more annoying. The natural interpretation of "protect against a content" would be not to present that content, but that leads to a ridiculous concern: my entire goal is to present the dominant and contemporary view in epistemology within its context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the cause of annoyance. If your bubble remarks were meant in different sense then I'm happy that we are on the same page. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

image for lead

A B-class article that gets as much traffic as this one ought to have an image in the lead so that it is appealingly decorated in search results. I am adding Mind in Cave by David S. Soriano. If this is too flashy, a couple other options would be [1] or [2]. I don't have strong views on what the image should be, just that the article ought to have one.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your image is that it suggests that modern epistemology asks the same questions which Plato also asked, but many philosophers disagree with that. Not only the text of a Wikipedia article, but also its images cannot present a view point in Wikipedia's voice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My only request then would be to replace it with something you deem more neutral rather than simply removing it. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Although, honestly, if I wanted to, such a distinctly modernist take on an ancient allegory could easily be defended as making precisely your point: the same abiding interest in knowledge takes on different forms under different historical circumstances.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Etymology used to present a point of view

Issue was addressed by a simple removal of the statement

This illustrates the general issue discussed in the previous section. Indirectly, through an etymological statement, the article presents a specific view on today's epistemology and on ancient Greek knowledge as being a universal view. The French version fr:Épistémologie uses a similar approach, but with their own adapted etymological view in which "episteme" refers to science: L'épistémologie (du grec ancien ἐπιστήμη / epistếmê, « connaissance vraie, science » et λόγος / lógos / « discours ») est d'abord l'étude de la connaissance scientifique. which translates as Epistemology (from ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη / epistếmê, “true knowledge, science” and λόγος / lógos / “discourse”) is first and foremost the study of scientific knowledge. The etymological statement in the article, as does the above statement in the French version, misrepresents ancient Greek knowledge to give a false impression that the article is universal and cover a general topic. To my knowledge, there is no universal view on the ancient Greek meaning of "episteme", but the most accepted view among scholars is that it is a knowledge accompanied with a techne, a skill. It is not useful to enter into the details. The point is that the etymological statement in the article (and also in the French version, but to support their own different approach) serves only the purpose of claiming that the article is a general article, but in doing so it relies on a simplistic view of the knowledge in ancient Greek: the skill could be a skill to govern a country, a skill in discourse or a craft. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Rationality of belief while claiming a general article

There is nothing wrong in a topic that view belief as a central aspect of knowledge. The problem is that this is done while the article claims to cover epistemology in general. Belief is certainly a central aspect of contemporary post Gettier epistemology, which is dominant in the English literature that cover epistemology. If this dominant view was clearly presented as the subject of the article, this emphasis on belief would be fine. But belief is totally rejected as being an aspect of knowledge in many other views on epistemology. To some, belief and knowledge belong in entirely different categories: knowledge is not a belief that respects extra conditions such as truth. In particular, to some, such as the Popperians, scientific knowledge cannot even be true or false. Once you have a theory, then in the context of that theory, a statement can be true or false, but, in general, a theory by itself cannot, except in an idealistic manner, be true or false. Insisting on it, would create an infinite regress. This infinite regress fact is described as skepticism in post Gettier epistemology, but that is their biased view on knowledge. This fact has nothing to do with skepticism, because it is not at all a doubt on knowledge. It is only a way to point toward a stronger and more practical view on knowledge. Another way of looking at this is noticing that fr:Épistémologie also claims to be general and to even cover Post Gettier epistemology, but yet the article almost never mention "belief" ("croyance"). The exceptions are a small section about post Gettier epistemology, a small section on the problem of induction (beliefs cannot be justified as truth) or to refer to wrong beliefs of philosophers, not as as a component of knowledge, in a historical perspective on epistemology. Again, this illustrates a key point made in a comment within the section #Changes to the article : the criteria used to determine relevancy is likely to reflect the point of view of one part of this non unified literature and there will be a violation of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Changes to the article

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has 12 unreferenced paragraphs and the following maintenance tags: 1x More citations needed, 3x clarification needed, 1x page needed, 1x citation needed, 1x dead link.

The article has an odd structure. It has a section dedicated to schools of thought but many schools of thought have their own subsections elsewhere, like internalism, virtue epistemology, and foundationalism. Knowledge is defined first in the subsection "Knowledge" and later in the section "Defining knowledge". Redundancies are also a problem in the two separate subsections dedicated to the apriori-aposteriori distinction and the discussion of skepticism first in the subsection "Skepticism" and later the section "Epistemological concepts in past philosophies". The section "Schools of thought" has too many subsections, some of which are quite short. It would probably be better to only use separate subsections for the most important traditions and merge the remaining subsections. The definition of epistemology should be discussed somewhere in the body of the article so that the lead can summarize it rather than present information not found in the body of the article.

The article has some historical information but it lacks a structured discussion of the history of epistemology regarding the main positions in ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophy. The pieces that are already there could probably be included in a more organized presentation as parts. Various important topics are also missing from the rest of the article or are only alluded to, such as applied epistemology, evidentialism, fallibilism, contrastivism, epistemology of religion, and moral epistemology. It also wouldn't hurt to mention the problem of knowledge of other minds and the problem of induction somewhere. The article is already quite long so some of the current contents would need to be summarize to keep the length managable. There is a lengthy paragraph on words for knowledge in other languages that could probably be removed and getting rid of some redundancies would also help reduce length.

Various smaller adjustments are needed but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. 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 start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The article should explain the context of its subject, modern epistemology, in a more fundamental manner, not only as an afterthought, in particular, not only in a history section at the end. As a starting point and always in the background thereafter, the article should have a critical explanation or analysis of the approach taken by modern epistemology so that the readers can appreciate the subject from a neutral point of view. Modern epistemology is the epistemology that started more or less with the Gettier problem, at the least as a social phenomena. This subject exists in a larger background. For example, this modern epistemology is not seen in the direction that "epistemology" took in the French culture. The complain is not that there is not enough space attributed to French Epistemology or to Epistemology as seen in Popper's work and some of his students that criticized him, etc. On the contrary, that would have the opposite effect of claiming indirectly in an uncritical manner that modern epistemology somehow covers all these subjects and that they only deserve some sections in the article, as if they are not more interesting than that within this big subject. This is a pretentious position that is acceptable when coming from many modern epistemologists, but is not acceptable within Wikipedia. What is needed is a more focused article, but an article that at the same time explains more its own context. The other approaches, French epistemology, Popper's epistemology without a knowing subject, etc. should only be mentioned to help that and only if it helps, not as a way to pretend that the article covers a big subject that includes them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point. I'm aware that this was the topic of some of our previous discussions and I intend to keep it in mind as I tackle the other sections. I plan to add more explicit information on the historical context when I get to the subsection "Historical epistemology" and I hope to include a short mention of this in the lead after the other points have been addressed. Ideally, the article's main subject should not be limited to new topics that have come into focus since Gettier's counterexamples but encompass epistemology in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedian might have a sincere vision of a general article, but actually he has a good vision that is focused on a nice topic that is well sourced and unified in the literature, including debates within that topic: unified does not mean a single point of view without debates. In that case, he may actually write an article that is well sourced and would be a nice article except for the fact that it is presented as a "general article" and fail to describe its own context properly and thus conflict with other views and violate NPOV while not going as deep as it should on its actual topic.

The notion of "in general" is fundamentally problematic when the overall literature on the given "topic" is fundamentally divided in different approaches or cultures. Otherwise, we simply pick a few reliable sources that represent the overall topic, understand them and write a nice GA article. But, this unity does not exists for most kind of knowledge. I don't see it for Epistemology. Scientific knowledge seems to be an exception, but not philosophical knowledge. It's very tempting to try to write a "general article" and to even see it as the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, but there is no basis to do it correctly. It will rely heavily on our ability to step back and gain a vision that, by definition, no universally reliable and notorious source ever had before. For this reason, it is very hard to write a general article without violating NOR or NPOV. For example, the criteria used to determine relevancy is likely to reflect the point of view of one part of this non unified literature and there will be a violation of NPOV. Worst, the criteria will be our own invention and it will be hard to justify it without violating NOR. Even if we succeed, the article will itself be divided with parts not well linked as it is the case in the sources that represent the overall literature. In other words, not much will be gained in terms of organization and it will not correspond to any ultimate goal.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right that writing an article on epistemology is a challenging task. The dangers of NPOV and NOR are real and one has to be careful to avoid them. It would be great to write the "globally the best representation" of the topic but I have doubts that we'll reach that level. To get started, I have the more modest goal of fixing the specific issues mentioned above. I don't know whether the article will be ready for GA once they have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But, there is a "simple" solution: boldly and transparently have the article focus on the view of post Gettier epistemology. This would allow a nice and well focused article. This is not a POV-fork, because within the debates there are criticisms. The article could even mention other views, such as the Popperian view, but in relation to the subject, if it is verifiable in sources. The fact that these other views only have small sections or are only mentioned as needed while explaining the main topic will be natural and not a violation of NPOV. This would allow to go much more deeply within the subject and will create a much more useful article that will contribute nicely to a good global organization of Wikipedia.

I put "simple" in quotation marks, because it require to resist the temptation to blindly do as is done outside Wikipedia by experts that believe they cover the totality of epistemology, but this is a standard requirement of NPOV: describe debates instead of engage them. We must take a perspective and not simply state what the sources say as if it was Wikipedia's position. It is difficult to do that in a nice way.

My angle would be to take what is claimed as the central tenets of epistemology as opinions of key contemporary epistemologists. The idea is to describe these tenets and their context instead of presenting them as universal tenets of epistemology since all times. I agree it's not easy, but the basic idea is simple: make sure the the basic view points, the approaches taken, etc. all these things that cannot be justified, but are the starting points in contemporary epistemology, are identified and described for what they are, not universal concepts of epistemology that exists in the absolute since all times, but what is accepted in contemporary epistemology and give its direction, that is, constitute the basis on which it unfold. In particular, attempts to present these tenets as universal by making links with Plato, etc. must be attributed to contemporary epistemologists and not presented as truths. The key point here is that it must be apparent that there is no implicit claim of "universality" by Wikipedia, because this is what allows to avoid a violation of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we are trying to say the same things with different words. Wikipedia articles should be in tune with contemporary scholarship. Contemporary scholarship on epistemology has been influenced by Gettier, so that would be accounted for. Despite the focus on standard views, the article should also mention non-standard views without giving them too much weight.

Short comment on some of your other remarks below: comparisons with the French article are dangerous since the meaning of épistémologie in French is more closely associated with philosophy of science and therefore not exactly the same as the meaning of epistemology in English, see [3]. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, the French article has a different orientation than the English article, but yet both claim to be general and both use the same history, the same ancient philosophies, to claim their generality. My argument still hold perfectly. The fact that they have completely different orientations and yet both claim generality is an essential part of the argument, not something that undermines it. Both need to better describe their specific context and not claim generality in order to avoid a violation of NPOV.

Thank you for removing the etymological statement from the introductory summary, but it only illustrates the general point. The entire article must be reviewed, not to dramatically change the content, which is essentially already post Gettier epistemology, but to add more context so the content does not appear as universal truth about epistemology, but as something that unfolded within a context, which needs to be better explained. When the article presents history, it is a history viewed within that context. Even that history should not be presented as universal. This issue is not limited to history. Just like in the French article, many sections are added in the article to support the idea that the article is general. Yet, despite these added sections, the article still have a global emphasis on a study of knowledge as justified true belief and on the questions that this raises. This emphasis is hard to accept in such a vague and large context.

Your sentence Wikipedia articles should be in tune with contemporary scholarship. Contemporary scholarship on epistemology has been influenced by Gettier, so that would be accounted for suggests there is no violation of NPOV, because the emphasis on JTB exists in the sources, but I am not complaining about this emphasis or about WP:Proportion per se. The issue is that the article should not present any content as universal truth, but describe and explain the context instead. I mention the emphasis on JTB, because without an explanatory context, it is hard for many to accept the emphasis on JTB. This is exactly why NPOV requires that we describe the view points without presenting them as truth, without taking sides. The goal is that the view point becomes more universal, more neutral, i.e., respects a neutral point of view. This requires more than adopting an impartial tone. I don't know how to describe a view point in a way that achieves the goal without providing an explanatory context. This is not opposed to verifiability and NOR, but is a requirement that goes beyond these rules. To respect it, it is necessary but not sufficient to be in tune with contemporary scholarship. It also requires that we actively search for the relevant information that provides that context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning universal claims, I guess it depends how widely accepted the claim in question is in the relevant scholarship. Widely accepted claims can be stated in wikivoice. Others need to be qualified or attributed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Points of view are not always claims. If I stand in front a lake, I am taking that point of view, but I am not making any claim in doing so. Similarly, in science, if particular technologies, etc. are considered, a point of view is taken, but no claim is being made in doing so. If an approach is used in epistemology, no claim is made, but that is part of a point of view. This is the kind of contexts that needs to be given. Besides, I already pointed out what you said and responded to it in a footnote. Also, I am not talking about attributions. The text of NPOV emphasises attribution of points of view, even points of view of a majority, but I am being more flexible and I consider that the key point is to provide the context and an attribution is often not the right way to do so. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Section Related fields: Epistemology is compared to scientific domains

The section Related fields correctly points out that a study of how to evaluate beliefs (their justification, etc.) is a central aspect of the contemporary field of epistemology, which unfolded in relation to the problem of Gettier. Unfortunately, because no context is provided to explain this particular view on the study of knowledge, it appears, in Wikipedia's voice, as a universal approach for a study of knowledge. More precisely In particular, the section presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology. Instead of presenting this point of view in Wikipedia's voice, the article should very early refers to sources that give the context for this form of naturalized epistemology. It is naturalized in the sense that cognitive science or psychology is claimed to provide the background, the notion of belief, on which it relies: epistemology formulates questions that are expected to be meaningful in that background. It is also naturalized in the sense that it borrows the notion of truth and some aspects of justifications from logic. This hope that we can borrow these notions from logic to analyse knowledge in general is very far from being a universal point of view. It is only the point of departure of post Gettier Epistemology (though it unfolded progressively before Gettier, in particular with Russell). Presenting this approach as if it stands by itself as the most natural approach to knowledge is a violation of NPOV. The fact that this POV is the point of view of a majority in the English culture does not mean that it can be presented as if it was not a point of view and the only way to correctly look at knowledge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. You say that the section "Related fields" violates NPOV because it presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology. The first paragraph of this section talks about psychology, so I presume that you are referring to it. I'm not sure which specific passage you mean. Could you quote it? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have not understood the main point. It is not about a sentence in particular. It is about the role of the overall section in the article. For the purpose of the current discussion, i.e, to understand the point I try to make, it is useful to distinguish between the two following things:

• The subject of knowledge in general as more or less defined by ancient philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, Russell to name a few (thereafter named "the general philosophical study of knowledge").
• Epistemology as viewed by a majority of academics in the English culture (thereafter named "contemporary epistemology").

When we accept that these two things are different things, then the issue is easy to describe. The issue is that the second view is presented as being essentially the same thing as the contemporary version of the first view, despite the fact that it is a very specific naturalized view that focuses on belief as a background for its analysis and considers truth and justification (or warrant) as two essential ingredients (borrowed or inspired by logic) in this analysis. This means that the section violates NPOV, not by what it says, certainly not by a particular sentence, but by what it fails to say: it fails to situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge.

There would be no NPOV problem with that section if the article clearly situated (in the lead and elsewhere) its subject, contemporary epistemology, with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge. The fact that the section relates contemporary epistemology with non philosophical fields only (psychology, logic, education, decision theory and anthropology) and perhaps in this way wants to remove any philosophical connotation, would not be a NPOV issue if that restricted context was clearly explained in the article. Though, there might still be an issue if the entire section is seen as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice for the absence of philosophical connotation.

As a final parenthetical note, which might help provide a perspective, I mention that since science began in the 19th century to separate itself from philosophy and proved itself much more practical than philosophy per se, most philosophers claimed that their philosophy was scientific (but there are exceptions, a notorious one being Popper). This claim to scientificality was even seen in the German idealists who were trying to unify science and metaphysical, even religious, concepts. Progressively, it became important, not only to be scientific, but to avoid any metaphysical connotation. This was particularly noticeable in the Vienna circle in the first part of the 20th century. (Popper distanced himself from the circle by taking the angle that we cannot avoid metaphysical concepts and must even welcome them, but be critical about them.) We are forced to admit that the rejection of metaphysics never really succeeded at anything, except in creating questions that are impossible to answer. It's the same old story that repeats itself with contemporary epistemology. The questions asked and the angles taken are viewed as accomplishments of contemporary epistemology and they are timely questions and the debates are deep, but still it is important to situate them in a larger context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that the section "Related fields" does not situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge. The reason is that this is not its purpose. If you can point out a specific passage in the section that violates NPOV then I can try to address it. You seem to suggest that the problem is more with other parts of the article than with something in this sections. I'll try to focus on improvements of this section for now instead of trying to fix everything at once. I plan to address the rest of the article later, one step at a time, but this will take a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The first step to make sure that we are progressing toward a consensus is to situate clearly the subject with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge, because there is no way to judge any detail of this section before this is done. You ask me the impossible. Many sentences would have to be corrected to make clear that they are written from a specific point of view. I amend here what I wrote previously: there is a NPOV issue with the section per se. I only meant to say that there is no NPOV issue with the basic idea of relating contemporary epistemology with these non philosophical fields. It is just impossible to enter into the details before we correct that other more basic issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can name a specific passage in the section "Related fields" that violates NPOV than I can try to address your concern. But there is not much I can do if the problem is so vague that this initial step is not even possible. In the light of your comment that there is currently no way to judge any detail of this section, how can you be certain in your judgement that the section actually violates NPOV?

The challenge you're encountering may stem from the belief that the academic discourse on epistemology in the last 60 years, including high-quality sources, presents an overall biased view that needs to be contextualized. I'm not sure that this perspective aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What academic discourse are you referring to ? Can you be more specific, explains a bit from where it comes from, etc. The usual readers might not have the background knowledge that you assume. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You used the term "academics" above to characterize your position. That's why I used the expression "academic discourse". In this context, you can replace "academic discourse" with "academics" if it is easier to understand this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove the maintenance tag without answering the concern, even if it requires a clarification of the subject to do it well. Regarding your question, your sentence was "academic discourse on epistemology in the last 60 years", so it does refer to the discourse, irrespectively of the term I used. In any case, the fact that you believe that replacing "academic discourse" by "academics" can possibly remove any need for further clarification, suggests, as I already pointed out, that you take for granted that your knowledge about these "academics" (or about their "academic discourse") is shared by typical readers of the article. The reality is otherwise. Even academics from other cultures are not aware of this emphasis on an analysis of knowledge as justified true beliefs and related questions. Certainly, the average reader of this article is not aware of it. They are especially not aware of how this emphasis came to exist in the English culture, but not in other cultures, especially not in the French culture. This fact is very well documented by reliable sources that focused on this issue. So, this academic discourse is not a universal discourse. The problem is that the section emphasizes the naturalization aspect of this specific discourse, but it does it in Wikipedia's voice without providing any context. It is like propaganda for that view point as if it was a universal view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We have made very little progress so far in clarifying where exactly the alleged NPOV view is introduced and what changes would be required to avoid it. I asked for a third opinion at WP:3O in the hope that this might help us resolve your concern more productively. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating that I need to point out a specific sentence that violates NPOV. Let me explain better than I did why I will not. Suppose someone had asked you to give a specific word that violates NPOV. You would have complained that as a minimum it requires a sentence to see a violation. This is the well known principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In this particular case, it requires at the least a paragraph. I explained to you in which way every paragraph of that section violates NPOV, but it is not as clear when paragraphs are considered individually. It becomes much clearer when we consider the entire section. Previously, I explained that a better description of the context is needed to solve that NPOV issue. It would be more useful to say more precisely what it is you do not understand in what I explained in this comment and before. 3O is not a replacement for this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Some context

The systematic assessment of claims to knowledge is the central task of epistemology. According to naturalistic epistemologists, this task cannot be well performed unless proper attention is paid to the place of the knowing subject in nature. All philosophers who can appropriately be called 'naturalistic epistemologists' subscribe to two theses: (a) human beings, including their cognitive faculties, are entities in nature, inter­ acting with other entities studied by the natural sciences; and (b) the results of natural scientific investigations of human beings, particularly of biology and empirical psychology, are relevant and probably crucial to the epistemological enterprise. Naturalistic epistemologists differ in their explications of theses (a) and (b) and also in their conceptions of the proper admixture of other components needed for an adequate treatment of human knowledg- e.g., linguistic analysis, logic, decision theory, and theory of value.

— Abner Shimony, Shimony 1987

This is not sufficient context, but it gives an idea of what I mean by context that explains that links with these other fields make sense in a naturalistic context. More importantly, it will not accomplish its purpose until the article itself better situates itself in a larger context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit goes into the right direction (though I would need to check its accuracy). In any case, it is only for one paragraph. This paragraph and the next one are specially important, because they are related to the historical context. This is fundamental, because the field is a response to an historical context and its associated historical issue. This should be provided earlier, because the article should be read with an understanding of that context and how the field reacted to it. Naturalization did not happen out of the blue. It happened in reaction to a problematic. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Shimony, Abner (1987). "Introduction". In Shimony, Abner; Nails, Debra (eds.). Naturalistic Epistemology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 100. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3735-2. ISBN 978-94-010-8168-9.

I'm not entirely surprised that this discussion has stalled. It might help others if a very brief (2–3 sentences) explanation of the dispute can be given: there's a lot of text to wade through above. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Aza24 and thanks for taking a look! I'll try to summarize the dispute about whether the section "Related fields" violates NPOV, but I'm not sure that Dominic will agree with this summary. It's not exactly 2-3 sentences but I hope one paragraph is fine.

Dominic says that the section "Related fields" violates NPOV in part because

1. it "presents, in Wikipedia's voice, epistemology as an extension or a variation on scientific fields such as psychology"
2. and it does not "situate contemporary epistemology with respect to the general philosophical study of knowledge".

I was unable to find a passage in the section where (1) is claimed, to which Dominic responded by stating that no specific passage can be determined because there is currently "no way to judge any detail of this section". Concerning (2), I stated that this is not required because this is not the purpose of this section. Dominic says that this is required nonetheless because "Epistemology as viewed by a majority of academics in the English culture" in the last 60 years (since Gettier's 1963 paper) has a narrow perspective that cannot be presented in Wikivoice but needs to be contextualized. This claim about the narrow perspective of the majority of academics seems to me an extreme minority view.

I hope this is a fair presentation of a major part of the dispute but I'm open to corrections. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Phlsph7 suggests that I am on the side of the minority in a dispute between contemporary epistemologists in the english culture and other philosophers. I am not engaging any dispute of this kind. It makes no sense to speak of a dispute and of a minority vs a majority when we refer to experts in a large domain vs experts in a more specialized field. The issue is that the usual reader needs a better explanation of this specialized field, a discussion of its basic premises, their historical context, etc. early in the article.

The relation between philosophy and science is one of the most discussed issue in philosophy since the revolution in science in the 20th century and this discussion even existed in the 19th century. This is explained in many text books on the history of philosophy. The section Related Fields engages in that issue instead of describing that issue from a neutral perspective. I am not taking any position here on that issue. (If you want to know, I think the contemporary epistemologists in the English culture have taken the most natural position in that issue, but who cares about my position.) I am saying that the article itself should not engage in that issue, but describe it. I provided an excerpt from A. Shimony above that might be helpful for that purpose.

Recently, Phlsph7 had the article engage even more that issue by adding a paragraph that presents naturalized epistemology as a branch of epistemology. Instead of discussing this fundamental issue in the talk page, he modifies the article so that it engages the issue and responds to a point made in the talk page. Some authors might say that it is a branch of epistemology, I never seen it, but it is possible. On the other hand, I have seen authors say it is one of the most pervasive and debated notions in epistemology. The article should not take sides, but describe the issue as a way to provide a context. This pervasiveness is consistent with the history of philosophy of science or of philosophy of knowledge (with science being the primary example) and how its evolution led to contemporary epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have reviewed some articles that @Phlsph7 has brought to FA. Some points:

1. I think we all agree the history of philosophy is important. This article has a history section, which gives due weight and prominence to the issue. This article is about the concept of epistemology, not the history of epistemology. As the latter is a subtopic, per WP:SS, it should be summarized here. What @Dominic Mayers seems to be asking for is a historiography of epistemology, focusing on how historians have documented the evolution of the general philosophical study of knowledge into contemporary epistemology. That is a niche field of academic study that is beyond the scope of a broad-concept article.
2. It seems like Dominic Mayers is engaging in a sort of inverse is-ought fallacy regarding the Related fields section. That section is merely a neutral summary of what reliable sources have described as fields of inquiry that have some relation to the field of epistemology. Of course, philosophers, historians, and scientists debate what relationship science and philosophy ought to have. But pointing out that scholars have said that these fields are currently linked is not wading into that debate.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: Please avoid arguments of authority and stick to the subject. Replies to the points:

1. No, I am not asking that History becomes the central point of the article. History is only one of the most important tools to explain the field and to not assume people know what the field is. History should not be presented as a disconnected section at the end only. The article must use all the tools available to help the readers.
2. The second point is based on assumptions. It even assumes that I am fallacious. Please stick on the subject. My point regarding the specific section Related Fields is that pointing out that scholars have said that these fields are currently linked violates NPOV because
   • the links are only with scientific fields (this is philosophy, not science) and
   • the debates around these links are not covered and arguing that it was not the purpose does not make it better.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We have various sources that explicitly support that the fields are related. Could you provide sources that explicitly deny that they are related? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I just explained that the NPOV issue is not about related vs not related, but about related to science only vs related to many fields (including a bit to these scientific fields) and also about a lack of description of the issue. NPOV is not only about proportion: NPOV can be violated even if there is only one point of view on the table. But, I am going to remove the maintenance tag for that section, because I want to deal first with the way the subject is introduced and it is best to put aside disagreements about this small section while we do so. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

the links are only with scientific fields That's not true. The section covers both logic and decision theory in addition to psychology, education (not a scientific field), etc.
the debates around these links are not covered You keep making this claim that there's some "controversy" over this issue, but despite @Phlsph7 asking you for sources several times on this talk page, you have yet to provide any. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Mathematics is at the base of science and decision theory is so applied that it makes little difference. Education as a field is certainly closer to a social science than philosophy. The basic idea still hold. No, Phlsph7 did not ask for debates around these links, but very specifically for sources that claim these links do not exist. These are very different things. His point was clear. He was still arguing for the facts that these links are factual and he asked if I had sources that say otherwise, nothing more. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Phlsph7 asked for. You've been making this claim, so it's on you to provide sources. We can't divine what you're referring to if you don't tell us what sources to look at or evaluate to change the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It mattered to me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I believe you when you say you're not asking History to become the central point of the article, but you've repeatedly made vague claims about how history is important without providing any sort of context, sources, or proposed language. Writing walls of text on the talk page about this alleged issue with the article is not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I only took the space needed to reply to never ending small questions, often totally besides my points, which exhausted me. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers, I must agree with voorts. I am sympathetic to at least your general concern, and I would support edits providing additional historical context in a manner appropriate to a broad scope article. But please, just make them yourself! All of these talk page objections and maintenance tags are feeling to me just increasingly obstructionist. As the saying goes, don't make the best the enemy of the better! Patrick (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe explanations in talk page are useful. Maintenance tags are also useful, because they explain what changes are being planned, which invites team work. But, I certainly do not want to take an antagonistic approach. So, I appreciate your point and take note that my maintenance tags and comments are perceived as being antagonistic instead of contributions to a team work. Perhaps my style of writing is responsible for that perception, but I don't think comments and maintenance tags are intrinsically the problems. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello voorts, I really appreciate you taking the time to have a look at the article and the lengthy talk page discussion to give your assessment. I share your concerns about the suggestions and objections presented by Dominic Mayers. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)