Talk:Knowledge/Archive 1

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal of general interest 

message: The Wikification of Knowledge  
by John C. Dvorak
PC
ARTICLE DATE:  07.11.05
Excerpt:
"To understand some of the basics of the wiki concept you have to read the entry in the Wikipedia on the consensus theory of truth—a very odd idea."
--67.182.157.6 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikification of Knowledge 

message: Don't pay any attention to Banno's lame argument _ad hominem_. Banno is just bitter because I had the timerity to question his odd notion that knowledge is belief, a notion that was taken out by Gettier's counterexamples.--67.182.157.6 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't pay any attention to Banno's lame argument _ad hominem_ 

message: # re-write of intro (that is always fun) so that it reflects the content of the article
# Remove section "adoption of knowledge"?
# add stuff about and link to Information science  contact user:Sbwoodside
Anything else?
Banno 00:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I just rewrote the intro, so I think that part at least is all good for now. Sbwoodside 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do when the page is unlocked... 

message: I removed this content:
Knowledge is always abstract, built up from the concrete upwards.
Data are facts. e.g. Telephone numbers in a telephone book. The list of densities of different materials. Data is the most concrete. You can print data.
Information is produced in response to a question asked on the data. e.g. Which is the longest name? How many names start with A? How many materials have a density greater than Iron? Information can be false. You can read information.
Knowledge is required to comprehend / understand the information. e.g. What is the meaning of density? Knowledge as it exists cannot be false. You cannot print or read knowledge; you have to Understand / Assimilate it.
Knowledge management in the corporate world seeks to record and make available experiential knowledge to Utilize the experience of One person to solve the problems of Another. Therefore, the Another does not have to repeat the experience to create the knowledge which the 'company' already has done once when One went through that experience.--Zhenn 08:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content from knowledge managment 

message: This is lacking a section on situated knowledge which is knowledge that can only be discovered, or only used, in a particular place.  Quite unforgiveable.
:This article now has such a section. Brian Jason Drake 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situated knowledge 

message: Hi I just rewrote the summary, more or less. I felt that the old summary had some problems, the first being the use of the horrible word "utilize" which is for me like a red flag in front of a bull. In addition, information is not really the same as knowledge, and the mention of truth and fact ignores others other things like belief and really belongs later on anyway (e.g. what kinds of knowledge are there?) or in the epistomology article. And finally the "this article looks at" construction isn't really appropriate for wikipedia.
Anyway, the only really substantive change is the addition of confidence -- it's a critical criteria for knowledge as compared to say information and seems like a good way to summarize all the qualifications from whatever epistemological side you happen to be on. Sbwoodside 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new summary & rewrites 

message: Main article: epistemology 
While knowledge is a central part of daily life, the actual definition of knowledge is of great interest to philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Knowledge, according to most thinkers, must be justified, true, and believed. Meeting these qualifications may be difficult or impossible.
It is also common to weigh knowledge in how it can be applied or used. In this sense, knowledge consists of information augmented by intentionality (or direction). This model aligns with the DIKW hierarchy which places data, information, knowledge and wisdom into an increasingly useful pyramid.
The motivations 
- it is not clear and includes such strongly subjective opinions as increasingly useful
 
- the theory mentioned is not sufficiently grounded in the subject matter literature
- there are many other theories, more or less formal, dealing with knowledge (see for example the discussion above).
- the terms used for the explanation of knowledge are not referenced to the Wikipedia articles
(it is lack of congruence and creates a confusion). 
In general, I think, the framework used in the article on information could be also useful in the case of knowledge and applied to an insertion of the above intuitive "DIKW hierarchy".
:Adam, the main article for the philosophical definition of knowledge is epistemology... the section here that you're talking about is mainly just a summary of what it says in that other article. If you want to get into the philosophy of knowledge - that's where to do it (which is why the two articles were split anyway!). The phrase "increasingly useful" was intended to illustrate that each stage in the DIKW pyramid is more useful than the lower stage. E.g. Knowledge is more useful than wisdom. I copied your comments on DIKW (below) to that article's talk page, which is where it would be better to discuss them. Sbwoodside 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining knowledge 

message: Folks, the philosophy links are intended to be inclusive, not exclusive. The philosophy project is not building an empire - hell, we can't even agree on a format, let alone a colonisation strategy! 
Knowledge is an important concept in Philosophy. When the KM folk get their act together enough to make a Wiki project, they are most welcome to put their banners here, too. It's just a link, my friends. Banno 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical links 

message: Why do we care how he defines knowledge? He isn't even famous enough to have his own page on the Wiki - removed this section. Banno 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I care what Banno (or Ballard or anonymous users) say in the talk page.  But I don't think that any of them deserve mention in this article.  Fame is what you need to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  A philosophical journal might enjoy original contributions from talented but unknown writers, however.  WhiteC 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard L. Ballard 

message: *some heavy discussions going on here - I believe the knowledge article should remain distinct from the science that studies it. People will search for and link knowledge and not the rather exotic field of epistemology. Iancarter 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (Knowledge - Epistemology) 

message: Could somebody explain why do we have Chabad reference in See also section?--66.41.162.254 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: This section was added in this edit. It struck me as a load of crap when I first saw it and it still strikes me that way. Brian Jason Drake 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is knowledge? 

message: The new section, Levels of Knowledge (revision), appears to be original research by the author.  The image upload identifies the creator of the chart to be John Jan Popovic.  -George100 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be original research?  This article could serve as a good example of the bad stuff in wikipedia... it is a shocker. Most of it deserves oblivion.  Banno 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of Knowledge 

message: Don't you think that limits of knowledge (of the present) should be mentioned in the article. e.g. uncertanty principal where the position and velocity of an electron can never be known simultaneously?--Matt H. 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits of knowledge? 

message: The same knowledge may be present on various levels in different systems . Acquisition of knowledge may be represented as successive cascade like transformation of signal (0) to data (1), then classification of data into knowledge (2), and at the end arriving sometimes to wisdom(3) which successfully describes generalized knowledge of particular topic.
The same information may be existent on different 4 levels:
Signal -> Data -> Knowledge  -> Wisdom
And during the information refinement, there are 3 types of transformations
Reception -> Perception -> Cognition
Example: to Listen -> to Hear ->  to Understand
Inverse example would be: Thinking -> Grammatical Formulating -> Pronouncing
It is clear that there are different qualities of reception, in terms of sensitivity or wave spectrum, like ability to see different colours, or faculty to hear ultrasound, but there are also different qualities of perception and cognition.
Signal examples are: sound, light or some other wave form energy, while corresponding data examples are recorded sound and photographic image. Articulated human voice may generate intelligible sound which may be used as the information carrier.
Levels of knowledge:
0. Signal - as physical waves or complex pulse information: Level 0 knowledge
1. Data – is captured, coded and recorded signal: Level 1 knowledge
2. Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data: Level 2 knowledge
3. Wisdom – generalised knowledge presented as coherent system: Level 3 knowledge
The intelligent information processing evolves by stages, and the "processed data" from one stage may be considered the "raw data" of the next. So perception is process which transforms input>"raw data" to output>"knowledge"; while cognition transforms input>"raw knowledge" into more abstract and generalized output>"Wisdom".
Reception is the process which transforms signal into data, while inverse process of reception is interpretation of data, i.e. Reproduction of  original signal, and recording and reproduction of signals easily achieved by technological devices.
Perception is the process which transforms data into knowledge, and inverse process of perception is interpretation of the thought, i.e. more or less successful Creation of  Structured Ideas. For more than three decades [Artificial Intelligence] is trying to emulate human intelligence, but with inadequate results. There are some voice recognition systems and OCR, but they are still much inferior than humans.
Cognition is the process which condenses and generalizes knowledge of one or different correlated topics, into one coherent logical system. For instance Geometry represents a type of knowledge and it has existed before Euclides, but Euclides in his Elements, represents geometry as a coherent collection of definitions, axioms, theorems and proofs thereof, and is one of the oldest example of pure wisdom.
Banno 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of Knowledge 

message: Is there any evidence of noteworthiness for this character? If this is not provided over the next day or so, this section should be removed. Banno 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've removed the material. If support is forthcoming, it can be re-inserted. Banno 10:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballard 

message: Hello All 
I'm trying to develop Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information and make it available to the community for free. 
My initial post to External Links was deleted so obviously I didn't get it right. I thought the Knowledge Community on this page might be able to assist me and provide quidance. 
I've posted my comments, goals and objectives at *Knowledge Generation and Dessimination. 
I would appreciate any comments the Knowledge Page community can give me. 
Arnold Villeneuve 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views - Guidance Required 

message: The question to hand is if the article should commence with Knowledge is what is now known" or Knowledge is what is known". From my talk page:
:Banno. Can you provide references of works that support the assertion that 'lost' knowledge is still knowledge. At best it can only be possible to say that it 'was knowledge'. My reasoning for this is mainly consistency with the rest of the article - if 'knowledge' that is not held by a person then it cannot fill Plato's criteria of being 'believed'. Also, although the previous passage about Indian thought has been removed, it also suggested that knowledge has no isolated existence -  there has to be a person who wants to know it rgds, ||:) johnmark† 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully I didn't write that. It was part of some unsupported text I removed. Banno 11:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'lost' knowledge is still knowledge. 

message: The definition has become the target of Wikirot, what with everyone adding their favorite philosopher's pet theory. Some culling is needed. Banno 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining knowledge 

message: I moved this section down in order prominence and then on reflection, tagged it for discussion, and then untagged it. The relevance tag I placed does not exactly fit what the concerns I have. Clearly Knowledge Management is relevant to knowledge, but my concern is that placing this section in the main article on knowledge gives it excessive weight? Knowledge Management is a body of management consultancy paradigms/theories which emerged in the 1990s (along with ideas of "Knowledge Society" and "Knowledge Age" and "Knowledge Citizens" etc. which didn't last as long). Basically, its corporate and management speak. I'm in two minds about this. Bwithh 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge Management section 

message: I've just read the following statement: "The classical definition, found in Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed." Since this definiton refers to the Theaetetus dialogue and I've just had a philosophical course about it, I cannot make much sense out of it. Where and how does Plato states these criteria? 
:See: SEP 1Z 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's definition of knowledge 

message: How come that Peterdjones deletes something he may not agree with. I am disgusted.
Inducer 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitiful purges 

message: "Knowledge is what is known." This circular definition does not stand any rational test. See definition in wikipedia.
For a hypertext lexicon to remain consistent you should at least concord your defintions all the way round. To push Plato or anyone writing two thousand years ago in the 21th century environment of knowledge is downright ridiculuous.
Hiding behind wikipedia editing principles puts you in a very bad light. Why not write a dictionary of quotations from classics instead? 
Inducer 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  idiot's talk 

message: REFERENCE THIS:  Knowledge means comprehension of truth -- a person knows something if that person comprehends or understands some kind of truth. Like the related concepts truth, belief, and wisdom, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge. The word "knowledge" itself refers to a process outside the boundaries of language.  We could reference the Epistemology introduction which starts (reasonably) from Justified True Belief and then explains some of the theories.  Asserting one defintion is obviously wrong
:I amended the text above to remove the definition of knowledge.  It is a contradiction to say in line three that there is no single definition of knwoledge, then provide one (and a controversial one at that) in the first line. The final sentence is also controversial.  The idea of a Wikipedia page is not to use the article to express a partisan opinion. --Snowded 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Knowledge 

message: Knowledge involves truth,  belief, wisdom... And Epistomology which is theory of knowledge also discusses truth and belief and justification. 
This article is within the scope of the Philosohy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. 
The style for these philosophy articles is worked out as per the Philosophy Portal instructions and standards (at the top of this page).
I will be looking some more at those guidelines before I do any more edits here.Newbyguesses 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guidelines are not designed to allow a partisan defintion and the assertion of something as a fact (outside the boundaries of language for example).   I have put the OED definition in place so you can be happy that there is an upfront statement.  That is at least neutral.  If you are not happy with that then discuss it here, otherwise we will get into three reversals.--Snowded 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re recent changes to first paragraph 

message: The paragraph dealing with religious meaning of knowledge is really too short, and is not comprehensive, I'm sure that many more beliefs and religions could be added. At this stage, it would be better to delete or label the paragraph as a stub.--B J Bradford 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions and Knowledge 

message: It's a slim line, between not endorsing and rejecting JTB (justified true belief). The construct of that whole paragraph is clumsy, a list of modern objections to an ancient proposal that  few ever thought tenable. What would be good is a brief history of the definitions of knowledge, starting with Plato's critique of JTB, Killing a few weasels on the way - "some claim", and finishing with links to Gettier. Let's show that there was some thinking on the topic between Plato and Gettier... Banno 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatetus 

message: The link to the german page leads to "Wissen", but as far as I know the two concepts are not identical, and knowledge could rather be compared to "Erkenntnis"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.222.153 (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  knowledge = Wissen? 

message: As written, the article states: "There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one." The first part of the sentence is accurate but the second part asserts a fact that cannot be known. Are there any objections to editing out the second part?
--Terry Oldberg (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Object, based on the history todate and the continued production of definitions and defence of different definitions this is an accurate statement.  --Snowded (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The above represents a set of assertions which are bold in nature and unsupported by citation.  Many would be contested by Cognitive Science as well as philosophy in general.  For example the set of rules called "entropy minimax" makes assumptions that knowledge is solely obtained by deductive knowledge a claim that is controversial in science let along Philosophy.  At best this material might justify a paragraph in the main text.  --Snowded (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining "knowledge" 

message: The addition of a defining knowledge section is problematic.  Nothing in it is wrong per se, but its a very partial summary of the field and other articles (such as epistemology) are better.  This is an overall problem with the page anyway, it includes knowledge management, and other areas.  All in all a bit of a hotch podge.  Its been tagged for over a year and has not really improved much.  Ideas?  --Snowded TALK 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud an attempt to define knowledge on the knowledge article, if only to say this is a difficult thing to do with several perspectives on the subject, to include ... (and then link to epistemology, constructivism, etc.) Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: * What are the parts of knowledge?
* What things are not compared to knowledge?
* What things are not connected to knowledge?
* What things do not affect knowledge?
* What forms are not of knowledge?
* What things do not qualify to substitute knowledge?
* What things do not require knowledge?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fails to address the following 

message: Any property which can be found in more than one thing is a common property. Any property which cannot be found in more than one thing is a special property. 
The knowledge of the common properties is applicable to more than one thing because a common property can be found in more than one thing. The knowledge of a special property is not applicable to more than one thing because a special property cannot be found in more than one thing.
, Analytical Wiki.
--Cumputers (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What knowledge is applicable to more than one thing? 

message: Yesterday's edits in effect produced a poor replication of material better handled in Scientific method.   We also had the Biology section which is important for its recognition that knowledge can be embodied in non human systems.  I have put the two together in one section, using material from Scientific method and also included a reference to Philosophy of Science.   It still needs more work and we also need to settle what are the headings.  In effect this is a summary or transition article between the more rigourous Epistemology and articles such as Knowledge management and should probably stay as a short article with a series of short and piplinked sections.
If other editors are unhappy with this then we can revert to the prior stable version and discuss. --Snowded (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and Knowledge 

message: Just wished to chime in on the subject of knowledge versus epistemology. 
It would be useful to have two different articles -- the one, describing 
what is acceptable by the reader as a description of knowledge (a kind of helpful definition) 
versus epistemology (which is a description of how various philosophers
challenge or challenged the shorthand description of knowledge found in the 
former article.) 
Perhaps the two articles have very different utility.  The article on knowledge is 
a help to the person who believes that they know, and the article on
epistemology is a help to the person who would like to challenge the 
first assertion.  
Most humans are filled with doubt as to whether they really know certain things.  
But they certainly don't appreciate being reminded of that doubt, just as 
uncertainty is disconcerting at best and frightening at worst.  
--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wish to Know we Know 

message: Why not have the Scientific Method mentioned in an article on Knowledge ?
Then, if there is a particular philosophical hole that needs coverage, that
could be included in the article on Epistemology. 
By the way, if we can't cite Plato, is that because the Dialogues aren't peer
reviewed, or because they are self published ?  
(Or perhaps more ominously, anonynously published).  
--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scientific Method 

message: * What is the use of the knowledge which cannot be repeated?
* What knolwedge can be repeated?
* What knolwedge cannot be repeated?
If there a section which addresses these question, this article would be wonderful!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the use of the knowledge which cannot be repeated? 

message: On the subject of Plato, let's for the sake of argument say that there is 
a current textual check as to the veracity of textual transmission of the 
Dialogues.  Does that allow us to cite only the most recent text ?
In other words, does the check of textual transmission have more value than
an earlier text, on which the textual check is based ?
(or, alternatively, can we directly cite an old copy of Ulysses if there is 
a newer critically edited version ?)
--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato and Joyce 

message: What will you do if no thing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability? Anything which one can identify has: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability.
No one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the suitable article to add this as subsection, if not in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me that a series of statements from a cult of some type.  It has no place here --Snowded TALK  05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brand it as cult? Wow...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think issues around atomism should be brought into this article then there may be a case, but the nature of your edit was 'Cult" like and the tedious video with its slogan kinda confirmed that.   Please read the advise on your talk page on how to edit.  --Snowded TALK  06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Knowledge Which No One Can Have 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: A section discussing how to measure "all human knowledge" would be great. emijrp (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought it was impossible a priori, however if you can find any reliable third party sources that talk about it we can take a look.  --Snowded TALK  20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Its not a reliable one I am afraid --Snowded TALK  12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Human Knowledge 

message: The first paragraph contains the sentence, 'It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' (where 'it' stands for 'knowledge'). In its present form this is incorrect, and although I changed it the original version has been restored. Writing 'knowledge can refer to...' implies that it may do, but it may not.
'It refers to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' is a better sentence and means what it says. The 'can' is neither necessary nor correct.--Chris Jefferies (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm. OK if we go with Aristotle then we have Sophia and Phronesis and that would conform with your statement, but would exclude forms of of knowledge that don't fit.  Intuitive knowledge for example may be neither.  I'm not sure why you says its incorrect? --Snowded TALK  20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, if we go with simple common sense, knowledge can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It need not refer to both at once; there are cases of practical knowledge unaccompanied by theoretical understanding as well as cases of theoretical knowledge without the ability to demonstrate a practical example. The use of 'can' acknowledges both of those possibilities.  __ Just plain Bill (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text: However the philosophy does not really permit of the Greengrocer example.  In this case it CAN but to does not necessarily mean .... --Snowded TALK  13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the first paragraph 

message: I've removed once again the sentence 
:Living is learning, and the things learned should be shared and passed on, for a society to move forward.
and the reference to Wikia. The content of Wikipedia articles has to be attributable to a reliable, published source which obviously excludes Wikia. The sentence is in any case too vague and preachy to constitute encyclopedic content. Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1, Philosophy is always vague, and the higher the standard, the higher the vagueness. 2, Philosophy is meant to be Preachy, and an encyclopedia needs to quote the musings on a particular subject, in an article for that subject. 3, I thought it was wikipedia norms to cite quotations, unless ofcourse you are one of those who have the power to Ignore all rules, and want to use it.--Ne0Freedom 20:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly dispute assertions 1 and 2. Philosophy doesn't need to be vague or preachy and philosophers that have a clear idea of what they want to say express things clearly. But the sentence we're discussing is something you'd find in a fortune-cookie. Moreover, I have no problem with including a reference to note that you're copying a sentence from Wikia. My problem is that you simply should not be copying a poorly phrased sentence from Wikia, in other words from an anonymous source with no credentials. Pichpich (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that western philosophy, like Bible can be straight to the point, but not so with eastern Philosophy. Personally, I catagorize Sanatan Philosophy into four levels. 1 Bhagvad Gita, 2 Yoga Vasistha, 3 Ashtavakra Gita, 4 Vedas & Upanishads. Try reading something from level 3 or 4, and it will confound you. My next point is, every religious philosophy preaches! Or are you going to tell me that Bible and Quoran don't preach? My third point, "poorly phrased"? You want to rephrase it, ?...give it a try. Or is it "poorly phrased" because you can't understand it?--Ne0Freedom 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia article on the topic of knowledge. As such it has no room for vague preachy sentences whether they're vague preachy sentences inspired by the Bible or vague preachy sentences inspired by Vedic texts. If you want to cite a credible expert on the subject saying "in Eastern philosophy living is learning, and the things learned should be shared and passed on, for a society to move forward" then I'm ready to listen, but you're lifting that sentence from Wikia which is about as far as you can get from a credible expert. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't have time for your petty arguments. My time is much better used making articles, than getting caught up in useless arguments like this one. --Ne0Freedom 09:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikia 

message: change "data is" to "data are"
128.36.175.156 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Modern usage of the term typically treats data not as the plural of datum but as a mass noun. So "data is" is grammatically correct. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: , per Pich--Jac16888 Talk 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 26 June 2012 

message: This page links to Fact which gets in a loop back to Fact when playing the philosophy game on Wikipedia. This might seem trivial, but I hardly believe that over 94% of all articles link back to philosophy now. It is either this page's fault, or the fault of Fact, because every page that I haven't gotten to philosophy with, I've gotten to this one.
I propose we make the first linked word be Philosophy, possibly by just adding it in front of the word "fact" in the first sentence. This would not significantly change the meaning of the sentence or the summary, but would make a lot of bored Wikipedia browsers a lot happier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgopack4 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice of you to ask, but too much time is spent dealing with this nonsense ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Y'know, you could just consider this page the ending page in the "Philosophy Game". Smortypi (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page broke the philosophy game. 

message: I would suggest that this page be replaced by views of 10 or more solicited top thinkers and people of knowledge, without pay.  One of the major problems of Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopedia is the lack of top authorities, who avoid the open environment of Wikipedia.  Here is one page that can take some solicited top authorities in knowledge, who can be criticized by the regulars.  Jumpulse (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Citizendium is the place for you then. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rewrite

message: The edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Knowledge) can only be created by an admin or a template editor. Nevertheless, I propose the following (less grumpy but hopefully effective):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichpich (talk • contribs) 
: — MusikAnimal talk 23:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edit notice

message: The article states: "Plato famously defined knowledge as ´justified true belief.´" No citation is given, however. While this definition (known as the classical definition of knowledge) is commonly attributed to Plato, it is unclear wheather he actually ever presented or subscribed to such a definition. The exact formulation commonly used is not found in either the Theatetus or the Republic, nor in any other known work of Plato. Historians of philosophy usually take the closest assimile to the classical definition to be Theatetus 201c: "...knowledge was true opinion accompanied by reason". It is not established that Plato means to accept this as a definition of knowledge.
I suggest that the reference to Plato be removed or else that at least the relevant section of Theatetus be cited. Reference to Plato could be removed by simply saying that the definition in question is the classical definition (instead of claiming that it is the definition given by Plato). If deemed important, it can be stated that this definition is commonly attributed to Plato (some citation would be needed then to credit the the statement that this practice is indeed common).
I will not edit the page, but I strongly suggest that some editing be done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.2.243 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought there were more than enough third party sources that attribute that to the justification dialogues of Socrates in Theatetus for us to be comfortable with it. ----Snowded TALK 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical definition of knowledge 

message: Used in the introduction to The Politics of Knowledge  What is that? That "knowledge." How would it be treated, as the subject, of a Wikipedia article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Production and distribution of knowledge

message: The heading "Theories of Knowledge" ought to include Timothy Williamson's view on knowledge, at least in brief. If this page discusses issues concerning why and how an agent has knowledge, then Williamson needs to be included. Though his view may be controversial, it is still a recent theory of how agents have knowledge. If this article includes a theory of knowledge from someone who is not an epistemologist (i.e. Wittgenstein), then surely this page should accept a view from a leading epistemologist. Also, if we look at the SEP article on "The Analysis of Knowledge" we will see Williamson mentioned. I request the following additional paragraph to be inserted under the heading "Theories of knowledge": 
Timothy Williamson, on the other hand, posits a claim about knowledge. In his book, Knowledge And Its Limits, Williamson says that knowledge is not a combination of justification, belief, and truth. Instead, Williamson argues that knowledge cannot be broken down into concepts or analyzed. In fact, he claims that knowledge is a basic, factive mental state--i.e. a mental state that entails truth. Williamson further claims that justification, evidence, and belief are not requirements for knowledge. He says justification and evidence require knowledge. 
Tlendriss (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of Knowledge Addition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524081117/http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/2022/1/Gottschalk-Mazouz.pdf to http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/2022/1/Gottschalk-Mazouz.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504201314/http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#1804 to http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820205238/http://vhp.org/news/news-regional/delhi-seva to http://vhp.org/news/news-regional/delhi-seva
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Change the awareness to link to the Wikipedia page on awareness. 129.21.94.40 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018 

message: 80.82.24.143 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's quite clear. This is a "get to philosophy game" edit. The link to awareness is not useful and its addition has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018 

message: Simple syntax correction request,
From: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems while others defend the platonic definition. To: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems,<-(insert comma) while others defend the platonic definition.
From: However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist. To: However, several definitions and theories of knowledge have attempted to explain its existence. English Correctorer (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: .  I implemented the first part, but the second part changes the meaning to something that doesn't seem to be what's intended, so I left that one out.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018 

message: There is a comma splice in the 'Situated knowledge' section: 'This knowledge is not knowledge that one can "forget", even someone suffering from amnesia experiences the world in 3D.'  Please replace the comma with a period or semicolon, or add a word (maybe 'because') after the comma to make it grammatical. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the whole paragraph.  It looks like material has been dumped here from a deleted article and we really shouldn't have a whole section based on one modern author -----Snowded TALK 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019 

message: I think the article needs a section on classifications of the knowledges. There is an article similar to that, Branches of science, but with a minor scope. Some sugestions:
* Plato: episteme and doxa (see Gorgias)
* Aristotle: 
** theoretical (episteme), practical (phronesis), and productive (techné) (see Nicomachean Ethics)
** historia and episteme (see The Parts of Animals, link)
* Bacon: history, poesy, and philosophy (associated with the three fundamental faculties of mind – memory, imagination, and reason) (see The Advancement of Learning)
** inspired Diderot and d'Alembert figurative system of human knowledge (see the Encyclopédie)
* Kant: division according the type of objects studied (zoology, botany, geology...), according to a temporal dimension (history), according to spatial relationships (geography, with a number of sub-disciplines) (see Physische Geographie, link)
* Comte: religious, philosophical and scientific (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology) (see Course in Positive Philosophy, link)
* Windelband: nomothetic and idiographic (see Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft, transl. History and Natural Science, link)
* Other distinctions: physics and metaphysics (Aristotle, Boyle), empirical/positive and rational/non-empirical knowledge, spirit sciences/humanities/Geisteswissenschaften and natural sciences/Naturwissenschaften (Dilthey), pure/basic and applied/techne, library classifications (Dewey, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.121.96.22 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea. We might also include that work in Outline of knowledge. Ambuj Shukla 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on classifications of the knowledges

message: one dead link found plz add my website link https://www.technical-education.com/ Talimam (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: WP:ELNO. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019 

message: "Awareness" was originally the first descriptive link. Is it possible to reinstate this as was initially in place? Etaripcisum (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We're not here to play silly games; cut out the disruptive editing. ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

text: No, that link was not helpful. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of this link has broken the phenomenon of "Getting to Philosophy" by clicking the first link in every page. I'd argue that removing it has removed an integral part of Wikipedia community. KalleJoKI (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Awareness" hyperlink has been removed 

message: I would like the Knowledge page to have an encyclopedic section on Using Knowledge. I have added some intuitive content on good-knowledge vs bad-knowledge. I have connected this to a relevant source reference. I would like feedback from the community for this page to refine this section before it is boldly attacked by overzealous deleters.
Openyk (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We rarely if ever include "intuitive content" in an encyclopedia article. If it's important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article, it should be explicitly linked to high quality references. ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

text: See WP:POINT for why mass deletion of unsourced sentences is not to be encouraged. Also see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Knowledge 

message: Are truthes knowledges or this question better to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ? --Visionhelp (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth/es accepted as knowledge/s ? 

message: subject
The subject of science is what discussed in that science معین پورصادق (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what change you are asking for -----Snowded TALK 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021 

message: In the wikiproject table found in external link section, it says small "knowledge" and must begin with capital letter "Knowledge". 196.188.240.85 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo suggestion

message: This is the position as I understand it
#This article is about Knowledge and has a section showing how major religions have treated that subject.  These are brief descriptions of a few sentences and none of the entries has included different sect positions - for example the differences between Aquinas and Agustine in Christianity  are not mentioned event though they had major implications in the Western Intellectual Tradition.   The Islam section does not talk about Sufi, Shi'a and  Sunni perspectices.
#All of the references and statements given above relate to the etymology of the name of the religion and discussions about the significance of Mandaeism in the history of Gnisticism. All of that may be right (or otherwise if you believe Britanicca) but none of it is relevant here.  Just because something is referenced doesn't mean that it is included
#The proposal is to expand the Gnositic section to include one sect, its not clear why and Manichæism is probably better known, but that is beside the poin: no other entry for any religion containts details about individual sects or perspectices
#No sources or material or argument has been advanced as to why the Gnostic section should be larger than for other religions or why different sects should be explicitly mentioned when they are not in the other entries
So - I have not disputed the addition of a section on Gnosticism but I am disputing giving privilege to one sect in that entry, and I am very dubious as to if any sect should be mentioned.
Per standard practice I have restored to the previous stable text to allow discussion takes place; the onus is on those proposing an addition to justify the new material.  If we can't reach agreement then we call an RfC although this really is a minor issue but that is proper process, not edit warring.
Those who want to insert this material need to make a case about why a Gnostic sect deserves unique treatment in this article.  I repeat, no other entry for more significant religions is treated in that way  -----Snowded TALK 07:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much time today for discussion, but I see a problem with the way the religions are listed. You have a Dharmic religion (Hinduisim), three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and Gnosticism which is not a religion by itself, but rather a type or category of religions, however no Gnostic religion(s) are listed. Mcvti (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good solution would be to either remove Gnosticism and add Mandaeism and perhaps Manichaeism instead as separate religions, or put Christianity, Islam and Judaism under Abrahamic religions and add Mandaeism and Manichaeism under Gnosticism. Hinduism would be under Indian (Dharmic) religions. Mcvti (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think editors would be open to rethinking it, but we need to remember that its not an article about religion, its about knowledge. The vast majority of readers will not really be aware of the 'three religions of the book' and anyway views on knowledge are not defined by origin. They will understand the major world religions listed there.  The issue and test is significance to this article, not significance in the study of religion.  We also need third party sources to establish significance and there we have an problem with giving any prominence to Mandaeanism.  To quote in full from the Enclyopedia Britannica "Mandaeanism, (from Mandaean mandayya, “having knowledge”), ancient Middle Eastern religion still surviving in Iraq and Khuzistan (southwest Iran). The religion is usually treated as a Gnostic sect; it resembles Manichaeism in some respects. Whereas most scholars date the beginnings of Mandaeanism somewhere in the first three centuries AD, the matter of its origin is highly conjectural"  -----Snowded TALK 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another idea could be to move the 'Religious concepts of knowledge' section into a separate article due its significance leaving this article to deal with the other aspects of knowledge. Mcvti (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth looking at as an option, it would need a few good third party sources to create a structure -----Snowded TALK 09:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reset

message: In the following sentence in this article:
"These controversies intensified due to a series of thought experiments by Edmund Gettier and have provoked various alternative definitions."
The hyperlink given to 'thought experiments' which is this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment has nothing to do with Gettier or Edmund Gettier. It is a wrong linkage between these 2 topics or article. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  and thanks for pointing this out. Strictly speaking, it is not an error since Gettier's thought experiments are one type of thought experiment among many others and the linked article is on thought experiments in general. However, there is a more relevant link target available: Gettier problem#Gettier's two original counterexamples. I'll go ahead and replace the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. In my personal opinion, Gettier's 'thought experiments' is or let's say are relevant to 'thought experiments' but not to that page as that page was very niche and specialized to Gedankenexperiment, unless we have some reference to what Gettier is into in that page. I, personally went to that page hoping that I will gain some more knowledge about Gettier or related topic ... but unsuccessful. Thank you for your quick action and the new link is an excellent choice, as it keeps philosophical topics within the same domain or collection of articles. Thanks again a million for the change. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'thought experiments' by Edmund Gettier 

message: My edit summary for this edit was supposed to say "hyphen to en dash", not em dash. I do know the difference, but apparently this is the day of sloppy edit summaries for me. Biogeographist (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In which I correct my own edit summary