Talk:Epistemic humility

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Polisciphilosopher. Peer reviewers: Chamberschris24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Theory section is undue?

Epistemic humility seems like a timeless and useful concept for people of all political persuasions, and the first two sections treat it from a universal perspective. Unfortunately, the third section on critical theory harnesses the concept to modern political ends, applying it specifically to heteronormativity and postcolonialism. The tone is also different: earlier work on epistemic humility seems to focus on self-improvement, while the critical theory section is about calling out others for a lack of humility. The net result is that I would never send somebody a link to this article, despite the universal usefulness of the first two sections.

One could attempt to balance the critical theory applications by adding other examples, but that would only compound the problem by increasing the ratio of political to universal text. I would suggest that the section is UNDUE. Perhaps it belongs in other articles? I'm not familiar with the area, but see that Lochrie's work is not currently mentioned in the heteronormativity article, nor Allen in postcolonialism. Thoughts? - Palpable (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks due to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section does appear to be longer than what is likely justified based on coverage in reliable sources. Searching Google Scholar I find many results related to religion or medicine, both of which are broader topics than the ones Palpable mentions. (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith as an unreliable way of knowing.

Many religious beliefs are based on faith. This is not a reliable way of knowing matters of fact. For example, religious claims that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old are not credible. Regarding matters of fact, thinking scientifically is much more accurate than relying on faith. Therefore, it is reasonable that the concept of epistemic humility should extend prominently to the use of faith to determine maters of fact. Those who form beliefs based on faith would do well to exercise epistemic humility. I recommend that those who rely on faith to establish matters of fact deserve a large dose of epistemic humility.

I hope this can be added to the article. Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]