Jump to content

Talk:Knowledge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateKnowledge is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleKnowledge has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2023Good article nomineeListed
January 23, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 20, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it is controversial whether knowledge is the same as justified true belief?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Untitled

[edit]
This article covers many aspects of knowledge. For the philosophical areas of knowledge please use epistemology.

Wrong knowledge is still knowledge

[edit]

"Complementary to the sociology of knowledge is the sociology of ignorance[1] including the study of nescience, ignorance, knowledge gaps or non-knowledge as inherent features of knowledge making."[2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sociologyofignorance.com The Sociology of Ignorance
  2. ^ Beck, Ulrich; Wehling, Peter (2012). Rubio, F.D.; Baert, P. (eds.). The politics of non-knowing: An emerging area of social and political conflict in reflexive modernity. New York: Routledge. pp. 33–57. ISBN 0415497108.
  3. ^ Gross, Matthias (2010). Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262013482.
  4. ^ Moore, Wilbert; Tumin, Melvin (1949). "Some social functions of ignorance". American Sociological Review. 14 (6): 787–796. doi:10.2307/2086681.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that it is controversial whether knowledge is the same as justified true belief? Source: Zagzebski, Linda (1999). "What Is Knowledge?". In Greco, John; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 92–116. doi:10.1002/9781405164863.ch3. ISBN 9780631202905. OCLC 39269507. S2CID 158886670. Since believing is something a person does, beliefs have customarily been treated as analogous to acts, so beliefs are good in the sense in which acts are right. Right believing has traditionally been identified with justified believing. So knowledge is justified true belief (JTB ). Sometimes, but not always, this has been understood to mean true belief for the right reasons. For several decades the concept of justification has received an enormous amount of attention since it was assumed that the JTB definition of knowledge was more or less accurate and that the concept of justification was the weak link in the definition. For the most part these discussions proceeded under the assumption that the aim was to arrive at a necessary truth and that the method to be used in doing so was that of truth condition analysis. An important set of counterexamples to the JTB definition of knowledge were proposed by Edmund Gettier (1963) and led to many attempts at refining the definition without questioning either the purpose or the method of definition. ... Gettier's examples are cases in which a belief is true and justified, but it is not an instance of knowledge because it is only by chance that the belief is true.
    • ALT1: ... that philosophers distinguish knowledge of facts from knowledge-how and knowledge by acquaintance? Source: Lilley, Simon; Lightfoot, Geoffrey; Amaral, Paulo (2004). Representing Organization: Knowledge, Management, and the Information Age. Oxford University Press. pp. 162–3. ISBN 978-0-19-877541-6. In its more modern forms epistemology has taken the analysis of meaning and the status of claims to knowledge as its quarry. Consequently, writers such as Bertrand Arthur William Russell (also known as the third Earl Russell, 1872-1970), George Edward Moore (1873-1958), and Ludwig Joseph Johann Wittgenstein (1889-1951) have attempted to delineate three kinds of knowledge: 1. Knowledge that, or 'factual knowledge' ... 2. Knowledge how, or 'practical knowledge' ... 3. Knowledge of people, places, and things, or 'knowledge by acquaintance'
    • Reviewed: (first DYK submission)

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Knowledge; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Phlsph7: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

[edit]

Misspelling/Typo: "A less radical limit of knowledge is identified by falliblists," should read "...fallibilists," 96.83.19.33 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]