# Talk:Metaepistemology

Unfortunately the reality of the field is that the jargon heavy terminology is required to convey very specific ideas.  This is not really something that can be changed without significantly decreasing the content of the article. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


### Metaepistemology
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.
Thanks, Shapeyness (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pineapple Storage, Phlsph7: Hello both, sorry for the delay, I took a bit of a break from Wikipedia. I think all your comments have been addressed so just putting this note here to let you know I'm closing this review. Thank you for all the helpful ideas! Shapeyness (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Query
@Shapeyness: It has been over a month since this has been opened, but no one has commented yet. Are you still looking for feedback? Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: Hi, yes I'm still looking for feedback. I was hoping for feedback from outside Wikiproject Philosophy to make sure this is as accessible as possible but will add a note there if I don't get any comments soon. Shapeyness (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Pineapple Storage
@Shapeyness I'm a complete beginner in not only philosophy but also PR and FAC, so apologies in advance for my ignorance re philosophical concepts, but I'm going to try and have a look through the article and give some feedback from a layperson's perspective. Hopefully I'll be able to come back with some comments later today or tomorrow! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pineapple Storage, thanks for reviewing! I want this article to be as accessible as possible so no need to apologise for any ignorance of philosophy :) It is quite niche so may be impossible to make fully accessible but any comments are helpful. Shapeyness (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi again @Shapeyness, really sorry about the delay here, I've been busy IRL the last few weeks so apologies for ghosting this review until now! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: no worries, I haven't been too active the last few weeks anyway! Thanks for all the comments, the lead is definitely a lot more accessible now - let me know if there's anything I missed or if you have any more comments. I can close the review if not :) Shapeyness (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience! Glad you're happy with the lead. I've added some more thoughts below about § Background, but I'm aware I seem to be going into a lot of detail bearing in mind this isn't an FAC review, so if you feel like there's enough to be going on with here then that's no problem! Grappling with this article's concepts and language has been a workout for my brain and an interesting challenge so far. I'd be happy to try and give the same kind of feedback on the rest of the article, but only if you'd find that helpful and constructive! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Pineapple Storage! Comments on the rest of the article would be very helpful and appreciated but don't feel any obligation if you get busy again. Shapeyness (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)


##### Misc
Aside from the final paragraph of § Nature and methodology of epistemology, discussing feminist epistemology, the only mention I can find of a female philosopher is the penultimate sentence of § Epistemic realism and anti-realism, about Sharon Street. I understand that philosophy tends to be quite male-dominated, so there probably just aren't that many female or nonbinary metaepistemologists, and of course we want to avoid giving undue weight to the work or opinions of non-notable philosophers. Still, taking this into account, might there be any non-male philosophers who have been influential in the field of metaepistemology outside of explicitly feminist epistemology, and could be worth mentioning?From List of epistemologists, I found:And from Category:Epistemologists:Maybe a few of these scholars had some thoughts on metaepistemology too? Obviously this is quite a hefty list already, and I'm sure there are plenty more, so it would take a lot of time and effort to search through all their publications to see if they discuss metaepistemology. It might be possible to start with any whose names are immediately recognisable (for instance, if they've been prominently cited by other authors in the discipline) and go from there? This is only a suggestion, and it could be there's nothing further that could be included, in which case fair enough! But I think it's something worth considering. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning this, I added a mention of Christine Korsgaard, her work is in ethics but it is relevant here too. Linda Zagzebski would definitely fit into this article, I just need to add a paragraph on virtue epistemology and the value of knowledge. The article isn't too long and I was already considering adding this so it wouldn't be undue. I'll check some of the sources to see if anything else springs out. Shapeyness (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)


##### Lead
As the "theory of knowledge", epistemology ... — It's not immediately clear to me why that phrase is in quotation marks? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
These are kind of acting like scare quotes, so yeah they shouldn't be there I think - they have been removed now. Shapeyness (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
typically viewed as a normative field focused on reflective thought rather than empirical evidence — I think this could do with a qualifying phrase to frame that last clause more clearly as an explanation of what you mean by "normative field", as opposed to an unrelated characteristic. For instance, "a normative field, in that its focus is on ..." or "a normative field, meaning that its focus is on ..." Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Normative here actually is a separate thing to reflective. Being normative means that something evaluates and prescribes rather than merely describing. The most obvious example of a normative field is ethics: it evaluates by saying that some things are good and others bad, and it prescribes by telling us what we should or should not do. (Hopefully this explains it ok.) It can be hard to get the balance between flow/conciseness and accessibility sometimes, but I'll think about this and come back to it if I can think how to explain normativity in a couple of words for the lead! Shapeyness (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, have come back and added some more explanation. Shapeyness (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah okay, thank you for explaining! And the definition of normativity that you added has really helped to clarify it, so the lead feels a lot more accessible now—at from my point of view as a philosophy novice! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
It is usually seen as methodologically distinct from the sciences, with methods including ... — For me, this raised the question "why wouldn't it be?" Is this highlighted because there's a particular branch of epistemology that isn't seen as methodologically distinct from the sciences? If so, it might be good to add a clarification along the lines of "Unlike [X branch of epistemology/philosophy], metaepistemology is usually seen as ..." Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the beginning of the paragraph that should hopefully clarify why this is being mentioned. Btw, epistemology is traditionally seen as "methodologically distinct from the sciences" but other viewpoints like naturalism and experimental philosophy disagree. Maybe it should be more clear in the lead that the "other views" mentioned are opposed to the traditional view? Not sure, but will think and come back to this as well if you think it needs more clarification. Shapeyness (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Yep, as above, this addition has definitely helped to contextualise I think! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
A number of questions arise from the normativity of epistemology. — This feels a bit vague. It left me asking, who do these questions "arise" for, and in what context? And if the questions "arise from the normativity", does this mean that the questions are about the normativity, or that they form part of the normativity (given that normativity is linked above to the idea of "reflective thought")? It might be good to merge this sentence into the next one somehow, so that the whole paragraph starts with the stronger "Metaepistemologists investigate ..." for instance. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
As a twin metanormative discipline, metaepistemology's relationship with metaethics is a matter of debate. — Is "twin metanormative discipline" an established phrase? If so, it would be good to clarify that the "twinning" in question is with metaethics (if that's the case), and also to give some context for the term "metanormative", as this isn't defined anywhere else in the article (and its meaning isn't automatically obvious). If "twin metanormative discipline" isn't a specific technical term, it might be better to rephrase this into more general language, for instance: "Although metaepistemology is closely linked to metaethics, the exact relationship between the two disciplines is a matter of debate." Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I've rephrased this, hopefully a bit less jargony and technical now. Shapeyness (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Yep, this has definitely added a bit more clarity to that sentence. Thank you! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Some theorists view the disciplines as strictly analogous whilst others see important distinctions between the two. — Hmm. This feels a bit vague; I think a more general/accessible phrase could replace "strictly analogous" here. The phrases "structurally equivalent" and "any positions taken in one should carry over to the other", which are used in the final paragraph of the article, gave me a much better idea of what this sentence in the lead actually meant; might there be a way to match this level of clarity in that last sentence of the lead? And maybe rather than "important distinctions", something like "important ways in which the disciplines are not equivalent"? It feels kind of redundant to just say that some theorists notice differences between them; if there were no distinctions then they wouldn't be considered separate disciplines, right? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Slightly reworded, although I am now using the wording "disanalogies", let me know if that still reads unclear/technical. Shapeyness (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
This definitely feels like it's along the right lines, thank you. Maybe a piped link to wikt:disanalogy could be helpful? That might just be me though, others might not feel it's necessary. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
No harm in adding a link so I added it in. Shapeyness (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Again, it's important to note that my ignorance of philosophical concepts is really punching through here, and it could be that your target audience for this article is much more clued in than I am (for instance, philosophy undergraduate students or similar). I'm also aware that Metaepistemology isn't currently classed as a Vital Article AFAIK, but Metaethics (level 5), Ethics (level 2) and Epistemology (level 3) all are, so it's reasonable to conclude that metaepistemology isn't so obscure that its article shouldn't even try to be accessible to non-specialist readers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)


##### Background
 Note: I'm writing these comments as I go, so apologies if any of my suggestions are actually already addressed in a different part of the article; I will try to come back and edit/strike any that turn out to be redundant! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)


###### Terminology
I feel like a wikilink to Meta (prefix) somewhere in this section might help clarify things a bit; if you know what meta means, this makes it easier to grasp how metaepistemology must relate to epistemology, so this might be a good foothold for readers who have no prior knowledge of philosophy etc. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I couldn't think where to add meta (prefix) but I added a link to metatheory. Shapeyness (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
which itself is a first-order or substantive discipline — Could maybe do with a follow-up clause to explain what a substantive discipline is in layman's terms, or perhaps just a wikilink to First-order (which briefly defines the term)? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
It's basically the opposite of a metatheory. A metatheory is a theory about theories, a substantive/first-order theory is a theory about something else. Biology has theories about fish and plants, etc. These are all substantive theories, whereas metascience might have theories about science and about scientific theories themselves. Sadly none of the sources really spell this out and I couldn't find another good source to explain this either - plus wiktionary entries don't look super useful here and first-order is a disambiguation page. Hopefully the link to metatheory helps a bit for this but would have been good to add more explanation if there were sources. Shapeyness (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
For sure! Totally understand the difficulty here; I guess terms that are so fundamental to a discipline are rarely actually defined in sources, because authors assume their audience will know the basics! First-order is actually a set index article though, so I think it's okay to link to it? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully this is also ok: Special:Diff/1304095980. I thought adding a new wiktionary entry would explain things best. Shapeyness (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
cites William Alston ... other theorists like Dominique Kuenzle and Christos Kyriacou (in footnote a) — some further context for the individuals mentioned might be helpful, just to orient readers within the literature a bit. For instance, I'm assuming the reference is to this William Alston? If so, a wikilink might be helpful; for the others, maybe a brief mention of their academic affiliation? Readers might find it easier to keep track of the different people mentioned if they know what era they're from (it's usually easy to tell by hovering over a wikilink whether they're a 16th century polymath, a 21st century postdoc, etc.) and/or what institution they publish with, for instance. Again though, this might just be me! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I linked William Alston and added some context about the relationship to the other theorists mentioned. Shapeyness (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
argue that the analysis of knowledge is a paradigmatic example of a substantive first-order epistemological question, not a metaepistemological one (in footnote a) — Is there a more straightforward synonym for 'paradigmatic' that could be substituted here? If not, a quick explainer might be good. (I would suggest linking to wikt:paradigmatic, but I don't feel like any of the definitions listed there actually represent the meaning of the word as it's used here, so that link might just add to any confusion.) Also, could a paradigmatic example of a substantive first-order epistemological question possibly be streamlined to simply an example of an epistemological question, given that epistemology has already been described as a substantive first-order discipline? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully this should be simpler now. Shapeyness (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
criteria of adequacy – Is this a philosophical term? If so, needs explanation, as currently it's somehow both vague and opaque; if it's not a specific term, then rewording would be good. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes this is a philosophical term. My understanding is that it basically means the criteria you use to judge whether an epistemological theory is successful, or whether it even counts as epistemological in the first place. Again the source doesn't define this anywhere, but I'll keep looking to see if I can find another source! Shapeyness (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I managed to find a good source so I added a note there. Shapeyness (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Dominique Kuenzle identifies its first use ... but Christos Kyriacou and Robin McKenna state – as above, a bit of context for these names might help to orient the reader. Maybe something like "Example Name, professor of X at Y University" or "Example Name, author of This Influential Book", where applicable? Just to kind of justify why these specific commentators/sources are being referred to (especially when they don't have their own article to wikilink). Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I could add the books they were making these statements in since they are both about metaepistemology - the only reservation I have is that it should (hopefully) be clear from context already that these are all philosophers working in this area. Shapeyness (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)


###### Relationship between epistemology and metaepistemology
into three branches analogously to the three branches – should analogously be an adverb here, or would three branches, analogous feel more natural? I'm not sure. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
nor entails any particular position in them. – I may have misinterpreted, but could this phrase be simplified to "nor forms a part of any of them"? If so, I think the simpler wording might be the way to go. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
For example, according to this view, a person being an epistemic realist, anti-realist, or relativist has no implications for whether they should be a coherentist, foundationalist, or reliabilist, and vice versa. – It's not clear from the previous sentence which of these sets of viewpoints are relevant to metaepistemology, or to other epistemology branches. Without further context, this feels like a bit of a nonsequitur. Again though, I might just be confused! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes I was probably drawing examples too closely from the source, making this more confusing than it needed to be - should be simpler now! Shapeyness (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
a normative epistemological view may even be fully derivable from a metaepistemological one. – Is 'derivable' a specific term in philosophy/logic? Might there be a simpler way to phrase this? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Changed "derivable" to "follow from". Shapeyness (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
according to the latter view, metaepistemology may have relevance to issues of practical importance like climate change scepticism – Unless the application of metaepistemology to climate change scepticism is explored in depth later in the article, it might be worth expanding a bit here, as it isn't immediately clear (to me, at least) how the two concepts could relate to each other. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I added a brief example, hopefully a footnote is ok. Shapeyness (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)


##### Nature and methodology of epistemology
knowledge is generally understood in terms of determinate beliefs – Either a simpler synonym or a brief explanation for "determinate" beliefs might be helpful here. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
but degrees of belief or credences are also important concepts – There's a bit of ambiguity here; grammatically, this sentence could mean "degrees of belief or degrees of credences", when in fact "credences" is a synonym for "degrees of belief". Swapping them around would fix this (ie. but credences or degrees of belief are), as would replacing "or" with "also known as". Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
These are the subjective probabilities people hold about what is true – Hmm... I'm not sure it's possible to "hold" a "probability"; could this be (eg.) "subjective probabilities people perceive about what is [likely to be] true" instead? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully better now. Shapeyness (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposed functions of the term knowledge – I feel like 'knowledge' should have a different format per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, but I'm not sure whether this should be italics or quotation marks in this context. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
and the relationships between knowledge and related concepts such as assertion. – Is there a relevant wikilink for 'assertion' here? Logical assertion redirects to Judgment (mathematical logic), would that be the right target? Just to give an idea of what type of 'assertion' is being referred to, and therefore how it could relate to knowledge. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
The mathematical logic link is probably too narrow/technical, I added a link to Claim (philosophy) which is roughly right or wikt:assertion would also work. Shapeyness (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)


##### Epistemic realism and anti-realism
Epistemic realism generally takes these epistemic facts to be normative and to provide categorical reasons for belief. – 'categorical' links to wikt:categorical, but even so, to an untrained reader it might not be 100% clear which sense of the word is being used. (I assume it's "Absolute; having no exception" rather than "Of, pertaining to, or using a category or categories"...) Is there a way of tweaking this sentence to rule out this slight ambiguity? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
File:Contextualism_explanation.png – Could there be citations to specific sources for these definitions? Also, the alt text for this image is a little bit unwieldy; might it be easier to format this info as a wikitable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
It denies the existence of epistemic facts, like error theory, but also denies that epistemic statements have any representational content. – Grammatically, this sentence is a bit ambiguous as to whether it means Like error theory, it denies the existence of epistemic facts, but it also denies that epistemic statements have any representational content. or It denies the existence of epistemic facts, such as error theory.... I'm assuming it's the former, ie. expressivism and error theory both deny the existence of epistemic facts; if that's the case, it might be worth moving "like error theory" to the start of the sentence (and adding "it" between "but" and "also"), just to rule out any confusion? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Phlsph7
It's great to see the article moving towards an FA nomination. As Pineapple Storage has already pointed out, one of the main challenges may be accessibility. Some philosophy articles have a simple general point with the difficulty coming from a complex analysis of this point. This article is different since it's already challenging to explain the topic itself in simple terms, so this is probably not the easiest article to get to FA status. Chances are that at least some FA reviewers of the article have little philosophical background. They don't expect to understand everything, but if they struggle with too many points, especially in the lead, they may be reluctant to support.
Some things that might help are to split long sentences into shorter ones and to replace difficult terms with simpler ones. For example, methodology often (but not always) means method, which is easier to understand. Another approach could be to cover less information. For instance, instead of naming each view with its technical term, like the 3rd lead paragraph, there may be ways to describe some disagreements and approaches without technical terms.
Accessibility:

Among the topics discussed within metaepistemology is what the nature and methodology of epistemology are. could be simplified to Metaepistemology explores the nature and methodology of epistemology. The sentence is similar to the last sentence of the previous paragraph so maybe it's not needed.
(See the third bullet point at #Lead above for some context.) Previously the article jumped straight in with "Epistemology is typically viewed as a normative field focused on reflective thought rather than empirical evidence." But I think that ends up just being confusing, so I think a topic sentence is useful here even if its a bit repetitive. I have reworded it to be a bit simpler and more focused though. Shapeyness (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
It is usually seen as being focused on reflective thought rather than empirical evidence and as methodologically distinct from the sciences, with methods including the use of intuitions, thought experiments, conceptual analysis, and explication could be simplified to This characterization emphasizes reflective thought and intuitions rather than empirical evidence. It is associated with the methods of thought experiments, conceptual analysis, and explication.
The following sentence lists various alternative views. Maybe it would be more accessible by not including the technical terms for each view but just saying what they do. Something along the lines "Other perspectives argue that ... or challenge ...", possibly using several shorter sentences instead of one long sentence. I don't have a clear idea of what the resulting passage would look like so I'm not sure if it would be an improvement.
Expressivism argues that statements about knowledge do not aim to represent facts in the first place, but instead express attitudes like "this belief is good enough". Maybe: Expressivism argues that statements about knowledge do not represent facts, but express attitudes like "this belief is good enough".
From my experience, non-philosophers struggle with the terms "normative" and "normativity". For example, see the first comment at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Epistemology/archive2#Support_Comments_from_Noleander. So finding ways to avoid or reduce the frequency of the term could help, especially in the lead.
I would generally be sympathetic to this but it would be pretty much impossible for this article because normativity is one of the key things being investigated (Compare to the IEP, for example, which begins not just with the concept of normativity but also with "situating metaepistemology within the metanormative domain" [that's a slight paraphrase]). Shapeyness (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Maybe some things can be done about the lead at least. For example:
Epistemology is usually viewed as a normative field, in that it evaluates what the right things to believe are and prescribes how one ought to form beliefs. not sure if that's helpful, but it could be changed to: Epistemology is usually viewed as a field that evaluates what the right things to believe are and prescribes how one ought to form beliefs.
rough draft of what the 4th lead paragraph could look like: Many metaepistemological discussions examine values and norms of beliefs, like the idea that people should not indiscriminately accept beliefs without good reasons. One position argues that individuals have an obligation to hold the right beliefs. However, it is disputed whether people have control over their beliefs and whether judgments about belief norms can motivate belief change. Since these problems resemble some issues discussed in the field of metaethics, metaepistemologists examine the similarities and difference between the two disciplines.
I didn't check the draft against the sources and it probably oversimplifies some things, so you may have to rewrite it somewhat if you think this is a good idea and maybe use a different norm-example in the first sentence. It might be possible to cover the sources of normativity by adding a sentence on instrumentalism if there is an easy way to explain it. Maybe something along the lines "According to one view, epistemic norms only matter because they help people form true beliefs." Personally, I'm also sad about removing various details and replacing them a dumbed-down version. But for the sake of FA, I think the danger of complaints about complexity and technical terms is much higher than of complaints about being too dumbed-down. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
What do you think of this change? Special:Diff/1303341796. Shapeyness (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
That's a good compromise between accessibility and information content. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Covered topics:

I think it would make sense to add a short explanation somewhere about how credences differ from beliefs and how some philosophical approaches, like Bayesian epistemology, analyze credences rather than beliefs, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaepistemology/ .
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The methodology section could briefly mention formal methodology, i.e., using tools from logic and mathematics. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments Phlsph7, I have rewritten part of the lead like you suggest. Sad to lose some of the details but probably for the best and I'm starting to get a bit happier about how accessible it is now. Will include responses above if I haven't made the associated changes to the lead. Shapeyness (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the transition at the beginning of the 2nd lead paragraph works well and the reduced information density should make the text easier to digest for non-philosophers. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
More comments:

The second paragraph of the subsection "Terminology" discusses the history of the term "metaepistemology". While the part about the first use of the term is interesting, I have the impression that the rest is too detailed. I think talking about the history of metaepistemology itself (i.e. when discussions of metaepistemological theories began, whether conducted under that label or not) would be more interesting, like the topic of the last sentence of the paragraph.
Not much exists on the history but Oxford Bibliographies mentions a bit at least. I shifted the focus to be more historical, although its a similar level of detail. Hopefully the broader view it takes justifies that detail a bit better. (Plus it's more interesting now so thanks for pointing out!) Shapeyness (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The problem of reconciling feminist epistemology's criticism of androcentric bias and simultaneous acceptance that feminism has its own biases is called the "bias paradox".[43] Louise Antony has embraced feminist naturalised epistemology to solve this problem, arguing that feminists should try to show that feminist values produce empirically better theories.[44][i] Other feminist approaches to epistemology can also be viewed as in conversation with different viewpoints, and as extending criticisms of traditional epistemology from a feminist lens.[45] For example, Sally Haslanger has argued from a pragmatist feminist perspective that epistemic concepts should be reformed to remove androcentric biases so they can better serve their purposes within epistemology.[46][j] I'm not particularly happy with this passage: it seems to be overly detailed and not really helpful. Maybe condensing it might help.
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
This means that statements about what a person knows, for example, are objectively true or false could be simplified to This implies that statements about what a person knows are objectively true or false Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done: I also added a note to explain there can be epistemic facts about other concepts.  Shapeyness (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Looks good. Some more:

Epistemic reductionists are generally naturalist realists while antireductionists tend to be non-naturalists. That is, reductionists tend to believe that epistemic facts can be identified with natural facts while antireductionists take them to be a sui generis type of fact.[51] Reductionists can be further divided into analytic reductionists, who accept conceptual analysis, and synthetic reductionists, who think that epistemic reductions can only be found empirically. would it make sense to simplify the passages by removing the technical terms regarding (non-)naturalists and analytic/synthetic reductionists?
 Done: I ended up removing those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
But if they need to know whether there is a connection—if they urgently need to meet someone in that city say—then they would need to do further checks before they can confidently say they know one way or the other. Do we need the initial clause "if they need to know whether there is a connection—"?
Removed. Shapeyness (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
This denial that epistemic statements have a representational content capable of being true or false is called epistemic non-cognitivism. could be simplified to The idea that epistemic statements are neither true nor false is called epistemic non-cognitivism.
I merged that sentence into the previous one. Shapeyness (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The section "Epistemology of epistemology" could be quite difficult for the average reader. For example, the paragraph of Metaepistemological scepticism seems to assume that readers know what the problem of scepticism is. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll have a think and try to simplify, although I think it's impossible for all parts of the article to be accessible to someone without any knowledge of epistemology. For reference, the only courses I could find on metaepistemology were at masters level, so if we were to go by WP:ONEDOWN then we would be assuming the understanding of an undergraduate who has taken an epistemology course (or at least intro to epistemology). I do want this to be better than ONEDOWN as much as possible though so will try to improve that paragraph. Shapeyness (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I changed it a bit but I think it's still pretty difficult: Special:Diff/1303732044. Shapeyness (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
It's possible that I'm overemphasizing the importance of simplification for this article. My FA experience is mostly from articles on quite general topics, so I think you have a good argument that a higher difficulty is to be expected for this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
The paragraph starting with Deeply related to the notion of normativity are reasons might benefit from a concrete example where a person believes something for the wrong kind of reason.
There is some discussion about believing things for the wrong kind of reasons in the paragraph "Another question is what it means for something to be epistemically valuable." I made this change, hopefully that is similar to the kind of thing you were thinking. Shapeyness (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking about an example closer to everyday life. If you find a source on the relation between non-epistemic reasons and wishful thinking, you could say somthing along the lines For example, wishful thinking may provide non-epistemic reasons to believe, such as believing that one will win the lottery based on a strong desire for wealth. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Pascal's wager is discussed by a few sources but that isn't really an everyday example. Another one in the IEP is believing something because it is comforting but that would add some repetition with the example used later on (to do with buck-passing and the wrong kind of reasons objection). After a quick search, I couldn't find a better everyday example, but I could try to incorporate Pascal's wager here. Shapeyness (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The example is not essential, but if you wanted, you could use the source Shogenji, Tomoji (2017). Formal Epistemology and Cartesian Skepticism: In Defense of Belief in the Natural World. Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-351-33655-0. The general norm only reminds us that non-epistemic reasons–such as wishful thinking–should not be considered in the epistemic evaluation of propositions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
The paragraph on metaethics seems to assume that readers know what metaethics is. Adding a sentence to explain the term might help. It could also help clarify the similarities if it lists some metaethical topics that have parallels because they apply the same idea to actions rather than beliefs. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done Shapeyness (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)