Talk:Applied epistemology

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic

Subject

The subject of this page is filed under the requested list of articles in Philosophy. If you have questions, please ask on this Talk page. If you have access to authoritative sources, feel free to contribute. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the meaning of know metaepistemology?

Just here to point out that this article probably shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that what the meaning of know is is a question of metaepistemology. Seems like there's disagreement about this in the academic literature. Sure you have people like Fumerton saying this is a metaepistemological question, but the IEP article cited in this article by Kyriacou outright says that it is a question of normative epistemology:

"As is well-known, epistemologists are intrigued by the perennial question “What is knowledge?” and, accordingly, try to come up with plausible reductive analyses. This much is first-order normative epistemological theorizing at its best."^[1]

Another source stating this is Kuenzle's Refurbishing Epistemology: A Meta-Epistemological Framework:

"Accordingly, he categorises attempts to find out what is needed for true belief to count as knowledge – surely work as paradigmatically epistemological in character as anybody could wish for – as work in meta-epistemology [...] The price Alston pays is that a lot of work and positions previously seen as epistemological (even paradigmatically so) would now have to be labelled “meta-epistemological”."^[2]

Perhaps the idea that the meaning of know is metaepistemological in nature should be attributed in the article? If there isn't any opposition, I will change it eventually. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made the suggested changes. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement. Best regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kyriacou, Christos. "Metaepistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Kuenzle, Dominique (2017). Refurbishing Epistemology: A Meta-Epistemological Framework. Epistemic Studies: Philosophy of Science, Cognition and Mind. Vol. 35. De Gruyter. p. 79. ISBN 9783110525458.

[1] Kyriacou, Christos. "Metaepistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[2] Kuenzle, Dominique (2017). Refurbishing Epistemology: A Meta-Epistemological Framework. Epistemic Studies: Philosophy of Science, Cognition and Mind. Vol. 35. De Gruyter. p. 79. ISBN 9783110525458.

[1]

[2]