Talk:Metaepistemology

Jargon

Unfortunately the reality of the field is that the jargon heavy terminology is required to convey very specific ideas. This is not really something that can be changed without significantly decreasing the content of the article. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metaepistemology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 10:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 22:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi User:Shapeyness, I'll take this one on!

Quick question before I dig in: Could you specify what variant of English the article uses, and maybe add a tag at the top of the page {{Use (this) English|date=}} to alert future editors? I'm not competent to proofread non-American variants, so this might help me avoid introducing errors and also later allow me to run a spell-check set to the version in use.

Oh, and if I see anything that I'm confident is a typo, I'll just change it myself. I think it's easier than copying text over here just to make you go back to the article and do it yourself. If I make a mistake, just revert. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick! The article is in British English - I often write in American English on Wikipedia (although I am from the UK) so let me know if there are any obvious places where this has slipped in! Shapeyness (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh and Shapeyness: Hi everyone, I'm pleased to see this article at GA! As part of the current GAN Backlog Drives, I was asked to review the review. It seems to be going fine so far and I guess you both already have your share of GA and non-GA review experience, but I would be glad to help with any difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, would be happy to receive any additional comments or input - the review is going smoothly so far though so feel no obligation! Shapeyness (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Phlsph7, thanks for agreeing to do this! I think we're in good shape and that the article is close to a pass. I'll ping you though, per the drive instructions, before I close it. I think your role is just basic quality control, but if you have the time and inclination to also give the article a close read, by all means do share any additional feedback. You're sure to have ideas that did not occur to me. I also welcome comments on my review (e.g., if I was lax in some respect, did a particularly nice job with something, overlooked some part of the process, etc.), but I believe this is optional. A thumbs up would also be just fine if everything appears to be in order.

@Shapeyness, all right! Your message below has been received. I should be able to finish this by the end of the weekend. Then, Phlsph7, I will dig into nihilism.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7, I'm satisfied that my concerns have been addressed and that this more than meets all GA criteria. Do you have anything you'd like to add before I close it out?

@Shapeyness, I made a few style edits to the lead. Please just revert if you don't think they are improvements. Some readers might pause at "reflective equilibrium" as a method, but I don't have a suggestion for a more accessible alternative. Because folks will not be mislead by the ordinary meanings of the words, I think it's fine.

Overall, great work! That article was in excellent shape as nominated, and I hope you've found that some of my comments have helped to further improve it.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick: Thanks for all the comments, they definitely made the article better! I made a slight adjustment to the lead again but feel free to revert it back. On "reflective equilibrium", we could replace it with conceptual analysis in the lead, not sure if that's any better though. Shapeyness (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh good! I'm happy to hear. Just in terms of accessibility, I think "conceptual analysis" would be a small improvement. But, if reflective equilibrium is more prominent in the literature, that would be a perfectly good reason to retain it. Entirely your call. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Both article and the review seem to be in good shape! All the main GA criteria were addressed in a collaborative manner with constructive suggestions. It's true that the lead is still challenging, but I'm not sure how much can be done about that given the abstract nature of the topic. A few minor points I came across that can be addressed outside the GA review:

• investigates what the aims and methods of epistemology should be could be simplified to "investigates the aims and methods of epistemology" you could also add "nature", i.e. "investigates the nature, aims, and methods of epistemology"
• whether or not there are objective facts the "or not" could be removed
• some realists argue error theory is self-defeating, since it entails I think there should be no comma before "since"
• The division between metaepistemology and the other branches ... are debated I think it should be "is"
• against a value-free of "disinterested" methodology replace "of" with "or"
• Image captions should end with a period if they are full sentences.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

General comments

I will place general comments up here so that they may be discussed without messing up the assessment template. I expect that I will raise some issues or make suggestions above and beyond what is required for GAN, which I will try to flag. Please don't be shy about pushing back or requesting clarification.

Lead

• I will come back to this at the end. Right now though I have just two concerns:
  • Could the language be made more accessible to a general audience?

  Unfortunately, I think this is one of those areas in philosophy where the ideas are actually quite obscure/abstract (as opposed to ideas that can be technical but simple to explain and understand at core). Let me know if there are any parts in particular that you think would be the hardest to grasp and I'll see if I can reword - the lead is definitely the place to simplify as much as possible. I did a quick search and it seems courses on these issues are quite rare but tend to be taught at the graduate level, so if we are going by WP:ONEDOWN it should be ok to assume some undergraduate knowledge of epistemology. Shapeyness (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but from that same essay see WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Currently, 168 articles link here. Curious readers who are at the encyclopedia learning for the first time about Plato or positivism who follow the link should be able to understand at least the lead of the article. Then, for the body, ONEDOWN seems like a perfectly good standard, with which the article is already in pretty good compliance.

  Or again, from MOS:INTRO: Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

  If the article needs a more technical overview than is possible within these constraints, you could probably adapt much of the current lead into an "Overview" section inserted directly below.

  As I see it, this is the one issue I've flagged that outright fails a GA criterion (1b). We can get another opinion if you think I am being too rigid about this, but I'm pretty sure we can find something mutually acceptable that will better serve our readers. If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to review a draft posted somewhere outside the mainspace. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  This one might take some time/thinking over but I'll try to think how some of this can be simplified while I work over some of your other comments Shapeyness (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is a draft in this sandbox. It's still quite similar but I've tried to move the focus towards the basics instead of technical details. Is this moving more in the right direction or is there any part in particular that you think still needs major reworking? Shapeyness (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Shapeyness:

  Definitely a big step in the right direction! There are a few things I would tweak, but I'd rather leave that conversation to the end of this process so that I can read it against the penultimate version of the article at the same time. I'm confident we can land on something mutually acceptable. It might not need much work at all.

  When you have something you're happy with, please just implement the change. At that point, I'm prepared to do my final read and complete the spot-check requirement. But I am also happy to hold off for a short while if you want to add examples or make other non-GAN requirements while you have an editor on hand to review them.

  Please just ping me when you determine everything to be in order. I'm bouncing around a few other things offline, but I should be able to do this in fairly short order.

  Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Patrick: I think everything should be ready now, I have added a few real-world examples where possible (in relation to explication and contextualism) and an example of how metaepistemology has real-world implications according to the interdependency view. I also changed the lead to the version in my sandbox. Let me know if you think there are any places where a simple example could make things easier to understand or if there are any other issues! Shapeyness (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • I don't think it makes sense to talk about a field as being a "branch" of two other fields. Neither of the sources cited in the Terminology section to support the claim use that language. This is a quibble, but it's also the first sentence of the lead, so it's worth spending some extra time.

  I think it's worth mentioning it kind of falls under epistemology and metaphilosophy but happy to change the wording around - not sure what to replace the word branch with though. For reference, here are the quotes I'm using for this: Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy "The first-order philosophical discipline of (e.g.) epistemology has the nature of knowledge as its main focus, but that discipline can itself be the focus of higher-order philosophical inquiry. The latter focus yields a species of metaphilosophy called metaepistemology."; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Metaepistemology is, roughly, the branch of epistemology that asks questions about first-order epistemological questions." Shapeyness (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  My objection is just that "branch", at least to me, implies origin, which is generally singular. Literally, it is something that extends from the limb of a larger plant or that flows out of a larger body of water.

  So what about something like Metaepistemology is a branch of epistemology devoted to examining its fundamental assumptions; this makes it also a part of metaphilosophy. for the Terminology section. (The lead probably doesn't even need to mention is, or at least not in the first sentence.) Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have removed this from the lead altogether, which makes the first sentence get to the point more quickly to be fair. I also shifted the mention of metaphilosophy into the sentence about metaepistemology being a second-order discipline. Feel free to change the wording if you think it's still not quite there. Shapeyness (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Terminology

• Metaepistemology is a relatively modern term and probably originated at some point in the 20th century. — should this be reworded or cut? It's weird to follow this level of uncertainty with specific dates all from the second part of the 20th century.

  Sadly both the sources used here (Kyriacou 2016 and Kuenzle 2017) leave some level of uncertainty in their wording. The Kyriacou source that is being used for this specific sentence says this: "Like the term metaethics, the term metaepistemology is something of a recent invention, most likely having been coined in the 20th century." I still think this is useful to include because the specific dates later are just meant to be illustrative examples of some of the important early uses of the term. But I can merge this into the sentence about Firth coining the term if you have strong feelings about this one. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I still don't love it, but it's a stylistic objection not relevant to GAN.

  Incidentally I checked the OED, which does not have an entry for metaepistemology at all, as well as a few databases that turned up nothing useful or conclusive. Apparently there's a research paper here just waiting to be written! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also, is there anything we could say about why it emerges at this time? Philosophers have been concerned with these issues for millennia before even epistemology was defined as its own autonomous field (even if it is quite common to project the anachronistic sub-disciplinary term back back on to previous philosophers investigating knowledge). It would be great if the article could dispel my suspicion that it emerged more out of the professional pressures on academics than in response to a genuine philosophical need only just becoming apparent. I understand though, that this may be a large ask.

  There aren't many sources on this but I have added a sentence at the end of that section - hopefully that is useful and not too awkwardly worded! Shapeyness (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's good. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relationship to epistemology

• The amount of disagreement documented in this section raises questions about its legitimacy as a sub-discipline and maybe even its coherence as a field of study. Is there a way that this could be addressed somehow at the top of the section?
• The distinction between autonomy and interdependency illustrates one way in which metaepistemology does have implications for other parts of philosophy. I would consider making more of this. It's the first specific example given in the article.
  • Shapeyness, just noticed you haven't responded here. Please let me know whether you are planning to address this or simply don't see a problem. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Patrick: Sorry have been going through these in order of "how easy is this to fix straight away"! On the first point, having thought over this, I think the article was over-emphasising the importance of some of these disagreements. The issue on conceptual analysis, for example, is not covered explicitly as an area of disagreement in any source other than Kuenzle so I have moved it into a note in the terminology section. I have also slightly reduced the implied level of disagreement on the branches of epistemology. Given this has reduced the size of this section, I have merged it and the terminology section into a Background section. Hopefully this now reads more like ordinary philosophical disagreement over definition rather than widespread controversy over the very core of the subject. On the second point, I wondered if you had anything in mind, even if just brief thoughts so I can check to see if I can pull anything out of the sources? Shapeyness (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, that's great. I have no idea why I assumed you were passing on this one. Take whatever time you need.

  The second point is just something that stood out to me because it establishes that metaepistemology is, at least on some views, a field with real-world implications, and not merely a formal exercise in categorization. Just personally, I find this interesting enough to merit further exploration. This not required for GA, however, so please just follow the sources and use your own judgment. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nature and methodology of epistemology

• Readers should not have to follow a wikilink to learn what a Gettier case is. They can find a detailed discussion there if interested, but this article needs to provide at least enough of a basic understanding to see why it is being discussed in this context.

  I added a sentence, which should be covered by the same sources. It's hard to fully explain Gettier cases without taking up quite a bit of space, but hopefully this is ok. Shapeyness (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  That looks good. As you've rightly pointed out, folks reading past the lead can be presumed to be at least familiar with major contributions to epistemology. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• General note: I'm beginning to think the article would benefit from the addition of "real world" examples, where feasible, to make these highly academic debates more accessible to readers who have not studied epistemology.
• Minor query: Aren't Quine's initials usually given "W. V. O."? I see at least one item in the bibliography supports dropping the 'O', and it doesn't matter as long you're consistent. I'm just curious.

  I've seen both W. V. and W. V. O. used. I believe Quine published articles under both at different times, although W. V. is slightly more common in my experience. Not sure why. It seems like a lot of analytic philosophers at that time published using their first two initials and surname (J. L. Austin, P. F. Strawson, G. E. Moore, A. J. Ayer etc. etc.). Anyway, I changed all occurrences to W. V. so should be consistent now! Shapeyness (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Good to know! Although it does not matter for GAN, I would caution against "correcting" bibliographic information. In this context, fidelity to the source is more important than consistency with the body of the article. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes good point. Luckily it turns out that the one inconsistency here had been introduced by me - it appears that "Epistemology Naturalized" (or the book it was published in at least) was published under the name W. V. Quine. Shapeyness (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Metaphysics and semantics of epistemology

• This section does a good job making connections to important philosophical debates outside of epistemology.
• One concern is that it was unclear to me what was specifically meta-, rather than simply epistemological. I don't have the expertise to make specific recommendations (if any changes are indeed needed), but you might review to be sure the article remains appropriately focused.

  It might be helpful to think about this in relation to ethics and metaethics. Ethics asks questions about what the right thing to do is in particular cases. Metaethics takes a step back to ask whether there is even an objective fact about what to do, or if morality is entirely subjective. Likewise, epistemology asks if we have knowledge about particular cases. Metaepistemology takes a step back to ask whether there are facts about what we know, or if it is all subjective or relative. The issue of realism vs anti-realism is one of the most consistently covered topics in overview sources so this should all be on topic and due weight. Shapeyness (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  All right! Good answer. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the header refers specifically to the semantics of epistemology. I would either explain this directly or alter the header.

  Towards the second half of the section there are some issues that are related to the language of epistemology. For example, does the meaning of the word know change based on the context? Are knowledge claims attempts to describe or are they just about expressing attitudes? Etc. However, the fact that these are semantic questions isn't called out, so I have renamed the section to "Epistemic realism and anti-realism" Let me know if that works. Shapeyness (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  That sounds better. I'll pay attention in my final reading and flag it again if I see any issues. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Epistemology of epistemology

• Would it be worth clarifying again how the "epistemology of epistemology" isn't just another way of saying "metaepistemology"? Otherwise no notes specific to this section.

  I put something together but it ended up being a couple of sentences so have included it as a note. Hopefully that is enough to cover this one but let me know if not. Shapeyness (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's helpful. Just a footnote is entirely appropriate. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Normativity and reasons for belief

• This section does a nice job of connecting what are clearly metaepistemological questions to issues of belief and justification. No specific notes.

Evaluation

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): I didn't notice a single error.

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Lead may be too technical, result pending. Revisions have addressed this issue.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   Spot check

   • Moser 2015; Kyriacou n.d.. support the general claim made at the beginning of the first section and in the lead – the encyclopedic significance of the discipline and what it studies – but they do not support the way it is worded in the article. This is a stylistic issue, however, not a misrepresentation.
   • Kyriacou, Christos (n.d.). "Metaepistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002 confirms ref. #18.
   • Carter, J. Adam; Sosa, Ernest (2022). "Metaepistemology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy confirms ref. 45.
   • Ranalli, Christopher (2017). "Meta-epistemological Skepticism". Oxford Bibliographies Online. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0342. ISBN 978-0-19-539657-7. confirms ref. #77.
   • Star, Daniel, ed. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965788-9. confirms ref. #85.

1. a (reference section):

   • Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2009) includes a page number in the bibliography rather than the citation.
   • And that is my only quibble. The sources are of uniformly high quality, and the formatting is more complete and consistent than some of what you find published by prestigious academic presses. This is above-and-beyond what is required for GAN and could probably sail through FAC with almost no changes needed. Pass with flying colors.

   This one is just because the entry for meta-epistemology is quite short and is only on a single page - let me know if you think it is best to move the page number into the citations still. Shapeyness (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

   Nope, you're right. Since you are citing the entry rather than the volume, putting the page number in the bibliography is correct. I did not look at it carefully enough (and was probably also thrown by seeing a single page listed instead of a range, as is more common). Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

   b (inline citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig found several hits in the low twenties or teens, but some of them were clones of one another. Reviewing the findings, I found them all to be just book titles or phrases common in this context (although maybe suspicious in others?). In any case, I have no concerns here.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused): Result pending minor concerns about drifting from specifically metaepistemological concerns into just normal epistemology.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Language is neutral and encyclopedic throughout.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: There haven't been even minor conflicts in years.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): All images are in the CC or public domain. They serve to call additional attention to figures of particular importance to the article.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes, captions explain significance. Alt-text could be added, but this is not required for GA.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Metaepistemology

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for FAC and need feedback on how it could be improved to meet the criteria. As this is a very abstract article, I'm also looking for places that people find the most difficult to understand so I can try to improve how accessible it is.

Thanks, Shapeyness (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)