Talk:Methods of obtaining knowledge

message: OK.  How should the list be ordered?  Since Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, I think a better reason than feeling insulted is needed; otherwise, it would seem to be just as reasonable to see this positioning as an insult to people of religious faith.  To avoid a revert war, could we agree that a better way of explaining the position of revelation in the list would be that it is used only by a subset of people.
I also wonder whether reason or logic should be moved lower, since (by the explanation on the page) it depends on the other sources of knowledge.  I'm not sure where on the list is best for it...I can see an argument for it being last, because all of the other sources can be used as the base for the logic...but I don't really think it needs to be that low.
In short this comes to: how do we order all the list (not just revelation) in a neutral way? - Cafemusique 11:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of list

message: Isn't emotion another way of obtaining knowledge?  For instance, you know that you love your daughter because of the emotions she causes you to have (i.e. you feel anger when she messes up, you feeling happy when she succeeds, you feeling sad (and maybe even mad) when something bad happens to her, etc.).  So shouldn't emotion be added to this page as a Method of obtaining knowledge?--SurrealWarrior 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotion 

message: When I was studying argumentation over 2 decades ago there were either 4 or 5 basic ways of knowing, depending on the source. They were observation, reasoning, authority, and intuition according to all reputable sources I studied; with the debatable fifth one being divine revelation. In the article, testimony (with authority as a subset) versus authority as a top-level way is touted as one of the main ways. That makes sense to me, for what that's worth, since not all credible witnesses have to be authorities. Basically, though, I thought that it was important to the article that someone mention that intuition is one of the traditional ways of knowing.PMELD5 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the ways of obtaining knowledge 

message: The only reference in this article is another encyclopedia and a defunct at that. It should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.48.86 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: The phrase "although there is no evidence to support this claim." seems out of place in this section, given that it's specifically talking about a method of obtaining knowledge that differs from evidence, which has already been listed under "observation or experience". The converse of this—adding something like, "although there has been no divine revelation of its usefulness," in the "observation or experience" section—makes the incongruity obvious. I nominate that it be removed. Trevor (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that wasn't very neutral, nor well reasoned. I rewrote the passage. -- Beland (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revelation" section under "Methods" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Methods of obtaining 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/20070927210700/http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Methods_of_obtaining_knowledge to http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Methods_of_obtaining_knowledge
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) 19:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)