Talk:Knowledge (philosophy)

message: Martin, I don't understand why you removed the following:
:However, only those who study some philosophy can recognize how their own epistemologies work, and so can choose to change it, if they so wish
In all seriousness, do you know what the word "epistemology" really means?  I have never heard anyone ever refute the fact that you just removed and made fun of.  Among those people I know who have never studied philosophy (which would be almost everyone), none of them what an epistemology is, or what kind of epistemology they possess. Precisely what do you find so objectionable.  Let me give you an analogy of why this is actually very reasonable. This is no more controverisal than saying "only those who study some genetics can recognize how their own gene transcription works". These are self-obvious facts, and not pompous or inflated claims. RK 21:46 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: Fred is a born again christian. His personal theory of knowledge is "if it's in the bible, it's true, otherwise I don't know if it's true, but it's not important". He fervently believes this with all his heart.
: One day, Fred hears himself speaking, and thinks "what an idiot I sound like". He decides he doesn't want to be that way any more. It takes him a little while, but eventually he shakes himself out of it and ends up with a more mundane, but underdeveloped, theory of knowledge.
: Fred has just chosen to change epistemology, for an appropriate definition of "chosen". He did so without studying philosophy or knowing the word epistemology. He also understood how his old, simple epistemology worked, if only on a subconscious level. He probably doesn't have a clue how his new epistemology works. Martin 22:27 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Ok, if that is what you mean, then I'll agree with you. RK 00:32 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-----
Folks, why does this page exist? By that I mean, why is this content under such an obscure title, rather than in the Epistemology article?  Is it a response to difficulties in the Knowledge article?
There are only a half dozen links to this page – I came across it by chance. The Epistemology article has dozens of links, but it’s content would be improved considerably by moving this material to it. Perhaps this material could be integrated into the epistemology article?  Banno 21:19, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The English word knowledge is much more widely used than the word epistemology.  People who use a search engine to look for information on this subject are much more likely to use the word knowledge.  Why isn't this info at the Knowledge article?  In a way, it is; that article is like a brief disambiguation page which discusses the different ways that the word knowledge is used, and then links here.  I would agree that this material should be in the article on Knowledge, but that started a fight with an irrational user, the now banned (EntmootsOfTrolls) who slandered everyone who disagreed with him as a "colonialist" and as "racist". While truly irrational, he somehow got enough people to agree with his bizarre views that the previous article on Knowledge was deleted on political grounds and replaced with the current version. The deleted material on Knowledge (as discussed in philosophy) was forced to this page. (In my view, that was a sad day for Wikipedia.) RK 14:21, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, RK. I thought it might have been the result of a compromise of some sort. The Wiki has at least three articles on knowledge, none of which provides a very satisfactory account. Although this one is the best, it is also the most obscure because of its title. Perhaps it is time to attempt to re-combine the articles? Or perhaps it would be better to leave knowledge much as is, linking it more obviously to epistemology and philosophy of mind, and incorporating the material here into the decrepit epistemology article? Banno 13:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Generally agreed. We don't need two articles (Knowledge (philosophy) and Epistemology) that cover the same material.  Epistemology should be the primary article with a better summary and link to it in knowledge.  B 20:33, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
----
I propose that the material on this page be merged into knowledge and epistemology.  Banno 20:32, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.  Though we could use this page as a redirect to epistemology.  -Seth Mahoney 00:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)