Talk:Epistemology/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to review this for a while, but hadn't found the courage to commit to the challenge. I have read several of your articles before and found them very well written. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phlsph7, I have started the review below. I have a major scope point I would like to sort out before moving forward. IAWW (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello It is a wonderful world, I really appreciate you taking on this challenging task! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

Will read after the article.

Definition

The term is also used in a slightly different sense to refer not to the branch of philosophy but to a particular position within that branch: On my first read through of this sentence, I thought it meant there was one specific viewpoint within epistemology called "epistemology" or similar. Changing "particular" to "philosophers" would fix this ambiguity. IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used a slightly different formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it determines which beliefs fulfill the standards: I don't think it determines what "beliefs" fulfill the standards, but rather whether the method of acquisition of the belief fulfills the standard.

You can probably put it either way. I added the formulation about forms of belief acquisition. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or epistemic goals of knowledge: The sentence starts with "This way", which refers to the idea of evaluating methods of belief acquisition. But "epistemic goals of knowledge" is a different subject that can be used to evaluate beliefs on? If this is the case, then it seems to conflict with the phrasing of "This way"? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the expression "This way". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "literally" to "literal translation". IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

earlier philosophers did not explicitly label their theories as epistemology: Would "epistemological" be more accurate here? IAWW (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think either one works. I kept the current formulation because it wouldn't be clear otherwise what the following "it" refers to. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge

Suggest linking "justification"

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood on a social level, knowledge is a characteristic of a group of people that share ideas, understanding, or culture in general. The term can also refer to information stored in documents, such as "knowledge housed in the library" or knowledge stored in computers in the form of the knowledge base of an expert system: Are these other meanings also of significant enough interest to epistemologists, or are they mostly used in other fields? If they are of interest to epistemologists, I think the text should say so. If not, I'm not sure they should be included.

They are not mainstream but I think they are worth mentioning nonetheless. I shortened the text and tried to clarify the relation to epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are certain limits to human understanding that are responsible for inevitable ignorance: For neutrality, would it be better to attribute this to consensus rather than state it as a fact? I am not well-versed enough in the subject to tell.

There are disagreements about where exactly those limits lie, but I don't think there are disagreements that there are limits. For example, there is a reason why no single human knows the first billion digits of pi. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whether fallible beliefs ~~about everyday affairs~~: Fallible beliefs might not be about everyday affairs

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types

Suggest linking "declarative sentence"

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theoretical knowledge: I'm not sure the article "a" should be here, leaving "It is theoretical knowledge", or maybe "It is a type of theoretical knowledge"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe consider linking "theoretical", since it is essential that the reader understands the precise definition of this word or it doesn't have much meaning.

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is use-independent since it is not tied to one specific purpose: This doesn't mean much to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, because it is not an entirely trivial exercise to conceive of a type of knowledge that is use-dependent without already knowing about the other types that have not been explained yet. I suggest adding a short contrast such as "unlike other types of knowledge such as knowledge of skills". IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mental representation that relies on concepts and ideas to depict reality: The source I checked (Morrison 2005, p. 371) says that the mental representations "embody concepts, principles, ideas", not that they are separate entities where the "mental representation relies on the concepts". I'm also not sure about the word "depict" here, it suggests a detailed communication, while anything communicated through concepts is by definition abstract. IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the terms have these metaphysical implications in this context but I changed them to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relatively sophisticated creatures: Relative to what? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as a result of experiental contact: Typo, I assume you mean "experiential" I am only not fixing it myself because maybe you mean "experimental"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To know something by acquaintance means to be familiar with it as a result of experiental contact: This may not technically be true as it assumes there is no such thing as innate knowledge by acquaintance? It may be true but seems counterintuitive to me, I would assume for example that infants have some innate familiarity with food. IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's often presented this way but you raise a valid point. I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples are knowing the city of Perth: I think this should be more specific that this is not the same thing as "knowing that the city of Perth exists". Maybe replace "knowing" with "familiarity"? IAWW (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, but I'm not sure that "knowing the city of Perth" can mean "knowing that the city of Perth exists". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "empirical" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A priori knowledge is knowledge of non-empirical facts and does not depend on evidence from sensory experience. It belongs to fields such as mathematics and logic, like knowing that 2+2 equals 4: Grammatically, the example refers to mathematics and logic, but it clearly refers to the previous sentence. You could move "like knowing that 2+2=4" to the sentence before to fix this. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Suggest linking "infallible" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Value

For example, knowledge of a disease helps a doctor cure their patient, and knowledge of when a job interview starts helps a candidate arrive on time: I think two examples is a little excessive here. At least for me it was one of the easier concepts to understand. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 2nd example. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plato already considered this problem: "Already" is weird here. No chronology has been established. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

more trust in knowledge than in mere true beliefs: I think "true opinions" would be better than "true beliefs" here, true beliefs could technically be knowledge. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A different response says that knowledge has intrinsic value, meaning that it is good in itself independent of its usefulness: : This seems to contradict the first sentence of the paragraph which was stated as fact. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the paragraph only presents a questions: Of particular interest to epistemologists is the question of whether knowledge is more valuable than a mere opinion that is true. The other sentences in the paragraph talk about instrumental value. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I meant to refer to the first sentence of the section, not paragraph. The value of knowledge is the worth it holds by expanding understanding and guiding action seems to contradict A different response says that knowledge has intrinsic value, meaning that it is good in itself independent of its usefulness. IAWW (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The first sentence of the section doesn't say whether the value in question is intrinsic or instrumental, but this is a technical point that most readers probably won't consider. I clarified the last sentence to get the idea better across and show the contrast with true opinion. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belief and truth

According to this view, beliefs are representations of what the world is like: "world" -> "universe" IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This view says that: I think this wording is too general introduce a specific example. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

of much more complex psychological processes: It would be cool if there was an example here IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but unfortunately there may not be a simple example since these more complex processes might be too complex to describe. Eliminativists about beliefs often just say that it's more complex without giving an exact alternative description of all the neurological processes involved. I changed our formulation slightly to clarify the idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough IAWW (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and a component of propositional knowledge: Would "attribute" be better wording than "component" here? It wasn't mentioned as a possible component of knowledge in the analysis section earlier. IAWW (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "attribute" could also work, but "component" is the more common term. The beginning of the analysis section talks about the traditional analysis and belief as one of the "three components" of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again, I should have been more clear I was talking about the last sentence of the section "Truth plays a central role in epistemology as a goal of cognitive processes and a component of propositional knowledge". IAWW (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think either one works. I changed it to "attribute". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

The epistemological definition of justification was not intuitive to me when I was reading the analysis of knowledge section. I assumed it would leave no room for justified false beliefs. This meant I struggled to understand the section until I realized this false assumption. I think linking "justified" there would have helped. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems "propositional justification", "doxastic justification" and "basing relation" are notable enough to be redlinked? IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added redirects instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Looks good :)

Other concepts

You could link to "bloodstains examined by forensic analysts" to "Bloodstain pattern analysis" IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While propositional knowledge is the main topic in epistemology, some theorists focus on understanding rather than knowledge: It's unclear whether you are trying to contrast understanding with knowledge, or just propositional knowledge. If it is meant to contrast with all knowledge, I think it would also be helpful to better distinguish how it differs from non-propositional knowledge. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism, fallibilism, and relativism

Looks good :)

Empiricism and rationalism

Some empiricists express this view by stating that the mind is a blank slate: I'm not sure whether this is intended as an analogy or whether they actually believe this? If the former is true I suggest removing "by stating that" and replacing with something like "by analogizing" IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to some rationalists, the mind possesses inborn ideas which it can access without the help of the senses: These ideas are inborn and do not come from reason right? If so, that contradicts the previous sentence? IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could say that they are born into reason. The main point, according to this view, is that if they don't come from the senses then they must belong to reason. I slightly changed to formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundationalism and coherentism

non-basic beliefs constitute the superstructure: They are not literally a superstructure, maybe add "can be seen as"? IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to coherentism, justification is a holistic aspect determined by the whole system of beliefs, which resembles an interconnected web: Same as above. Suggest changing to something like "which can be visualized as an interconnected web". IAWW (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "resembles". I think we can leave it open how concrete or abstract this resemblence is. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internalism and externalism

"Externalism rejects this view, saying that at least some relevant factors are external to the individual. This means that the cognitive perspective of the individual is less central while other factors, specifically the relation to truth, become more important."

It's unclear what relation to truth the sentence is referring to. Adding the word "belief's" to make "specifically the belief's relation to truth" clears this up.
The belief's relation to truth does not just become more important, because internalism does not consider this factor at all. Rather, the belief's relation to truth is considered as a factor in externalism, while it is not considered at all in internalism. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self to reread this section later. I'm finding it hard to fully grasp these two concepts based on just reading this section. It's hard to tell if this is due to the text being unclear, or whether the text is doing the best it can in it's limited space. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rewrite the 2nd paragraph to clarify the idea. I agree that presenting these views is difficult. One reason is that externalists disagree with each other about the details. So the challenge is to express the ideas in a way that the different subgroups would agree on. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Suggest linking "illusions" IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sees the pursuit of knowledge as an ongoing process guided by common sense and experience while always open to revision.: This doesn't help understand pragmatist epistemology because it is also true of fallibilism IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the part about common sense and experience are part of fallibilism in its minimal definition. I added a sentence to give some more details. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"unique particulars" is quite a technical term. I had to look it up to understand it's meaning in philosophy. Could it be linked or omitted in favour of less technical language? IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyāya epistemology discusses the causal relation between the knower and the object of knowledge: This is quite vague. What direction is the causal relationship? And, how can a causal relationship be established "through reliable knowledge-formation processes"? IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated this sentence and the next one. Have a look if it is clearer now. Unfortunately, we don't have much space for this particular view to go more into detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand how there is a causal relationship, but also understand that explaining that may take too much room. IAWW (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African epistemology is rooted in African ontology. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of reality in the form of a continuum between knowing subject and known object, and [it] understands knowledge as a holistic phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational aspects and is not limited to the physical domain.: Added an "it" to satisfy WP:CINS IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I split it into two separate sentences instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "continuum" be linked? I find it a hard concept to understand as someone who has never been exposed to African ontology before. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branches

Suggest linking "epistemology of mathematics" IAWW (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we currently don't have a corresponding article and I'm not a big fan of red links. We could link it to Philosophy of mathematics, but it is more about metaphysics than about epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, I'll leave it up to you. IAWW (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "knowledge of ultimate reality"? IAWW (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "knowledge of the basic structure of reality", which is hopefully more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related fields

Can "laws of logic" be linked? IAWW (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fallacy theory. Fallacies are faulty arguments based on incorrect reasoning.: This explains what fallacies are, but what is fallacy theory? IAWW (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it is just means something like "the study of fallacies". I replaces "fallacy theory" with "fallacies" to avoid this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

The Hellenistic schools began to arise in the 4th century BCE. The Epicureans had: If the reader is not familiar with the relation between Hellenistic schools and the Epicureans then these seem to be unconnected ideas. IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did nothing worth mentioning happen from ~200 BCE to ~800 CE? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellenistic schools lasted well into the first few centuries of the common era. I added a sentence on Neoplatonism to further close the temporal gap. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) tried to find a middle position: Do the sources really support that he specifically set out with the purpose of finding a middle ground? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Thorpe 2014 p. 5: In the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Kant offers a middle ground between rationalism and empiricism. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the alternatives considered was reliabilism: By whom? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned one of the authors. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add when epistemology was first cantegorised as its own field? IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in the paragraph on etymology in the section "Definition" and the footnote there. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

No issues with link rot and the references are well formatted.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

I find it simply incredible how you have managed to integrate this amount of high quality sources. Amazing work!

Almost all sources are books or journals from reliable publishers. I don't see any issues here. IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

Alas, the last thing that remains is the spot check. Hopefully I'll have time to do this tomorrow but most likely it will be a few days as I start work tomorrow and am anticipating being quite busy. IAWW (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) clock

Earwig finds no too copyvio issues. Will check further on spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y

I am a bit concerned that this article goes into too much detail on the central concepts. This article is about epistemology, not the concepts it studies. Any explanation of the concepts relevant to the field should therefore be directly relevant to how epistemology interacts with other concepts, or be essential to understanding the definition.

Unfortunately I cannot find any featured articles on a scientific or philosophical discipline to compare with.

I think the counterargument for inclusion would go something along the lines of "explaining the concepts increases the understanding of epistemology", but beyond being able to understand the definition, I don't think it does?

I think this is the most un-intuitive point I have ever made on a review, so I could well be wrong. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that the article did not properly clarify the purpose of this section so I added a short introductory paragraph and changed some formulations. The section is not primarily a preparatory exercise to help readers understand what comes afterward. Instead, the study of these concepts is part of epistemology itself. For example, the analysis, value, and sources of knowledge take center stage in many discussions both as epistemological topics in their own right and for the effects they have on other topics.

There are different ways to split these topics into sections and one could do so without a section called "Central concepts". However, I think it's a good approach in our case, which is also found in high-quality sources. For example, Part 1 of the Routledge Companion to Epistemology is called "Foundational Concepts" with one chapter dedicated to each major concept. The articles "Epistemology" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also have separate sections or subsections dedicated to these topics. Of course, that doesn't mean that everything that is currently in our section absolutely needs to be there. Please let me know if specific details get too much weight, then I'll try to summarize them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine justification. IAWW (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for similar articles with sections on basic concepts, see Ontology and Logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media Y

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

I think most of these should be cited, even if they are supported by the text. For the ease of anyone looking to verify. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the corresponding references. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the captions have full stops after the citations. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, they are displayed normally. For example, the caption of Russell's images is The distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance plays a central role in the epistemology of Bertrand Russell.[24] Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

File:David Hume 2.jpg says it has been "superseded" and should be replaced with File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg. This isn't something I have seen before but I assume it is better to replace it. IAWW (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quality of the 2nd image is better so I used it instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to some rationalists, the mind possesses inborn ideas ~~which~~[that] it can access without the help of the senses: In American English, "that" is preferred over "which" for restrictive clauses. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a non-restrictive clause instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if there could be images of the superstructure and/or interconnected web visualizations presented in the Foundationalism and coherentism section. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To generalize the above point, I think this article could do with more media which illustrate the concepts discussed in the text. IAWW (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do about it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]