Talk:Knowledge/Archive 2

441:

Qabalah) to say what would or would not be appropriate to say about the view of knowledge in Kabbalah for this article. I'm sorry, but I don't think what you wrote really describes knowledge as it is viewed in Qabalah -- It doesn't say anywhere in the references I gave that knowledge is "an important element", for example, or that it seeks to decipher "hidden knowledge." It seems that what you wrote is using the definition of "knowledge" as the word is commonly used, and not as the word is used within Qabalah -- and the whole point of explaining the concept of "knowledge" in Qabalah, or in any other belief system, is to distinguish it from the common usage of the word, no? It is used as a translation of the Hebrew word "Daath" in Qabalah, which is not necessarily identical to the common conceptualization of "knowledge" in English. Also it should be clarified that "sephirot" and "sephira" are singular and plural versions of the same word, as it is unlikely that someone unfamiliar with the concept would be able to immediately infer that.

4810:, the abilities that you mention here are called "biologically primary knowledge", e.g.: "We deal quite differently with biologically primary and biologically secondary information. Recognising faces, recognising speech, using general problem-solving strategies, and engaging in basic social relations provide examples of biologically primary knowledge that we have evolved to acquire." I'm not so sure that people "care way more" about this kind of knowledge as opposed to what cognitive load theory calls biologically secondary knowledge. I imagine that most people are concerned with the latter unless their kids are failing to acquire the former. But your comment raises the very apposite issue that it may be worth mentioning the biologically primary/secondary distinction in this article, in 4491:"Knowledge is power" is something you tell kids to try to get them more interested in school. I imagine that it is also frequently repeated in some business classes. Foucault's point, however, is not just that power and knowledge are entwined, but that they follow a "logic" (my word, not his) independent of any human intention at any level, individual or institutional. I don't think this is captured by your original formulation or the slightly modified version here. It is, however, supported by the SEP article. Go ahead though and revert if you want. I've spent too much time on this in the review, and am tired of debating it at sentence level. Please tag me should you want any further input (though I imagine you have had more than enough!). I'm unfollowing for at least the time being. 1416:

long with a lot of very detailed information. Unless there's a good reason not to, I think it would be better to move the information about specific religions to an appropriate sub-article. This section is best left addressing the broader intersection of religion and knowledge rather than the intersection of specific religions with knowledge. It might also be worth looking through the article for a quick check on formatting: see if there are any long paragraphs that can be split, and see if there are any long sections that can be better organized with subheadings (though it may very well be the case that there's no efficient way to do this). In the meantime, I'll give the article one more read-over for clarity and flow.

1357:: I've posted most of the initial review. I'm almost finished with criterion 2, but I want to go over the sourcing a little more and figured there was no need to keep you waiting in the meantime (the gist of criterion 2 will likely be the limited use of secondary sources and a few minor isolated issues). There are a lot of notes and suggestions here; consider that an effect of the article's scope rather than any failure to approach the GA criteria. Given said scope, I'm not going to expect everything to get addressed at once, so take your time. And disclaimer, I know you personally didn't write some of these things I'm critiquing, but I'm directing the comments at you for the sake of simplicity. 225:. Since Kabbalah belongs to Jewish mysticism, it should probably be discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "Religion", which deals with the Jewish tradition. I would make it a little shorter since it has not the same importance as other traditions. We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree. What do you think about adding the following sentences to that paragraph? I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence). The other details would probably fit better into the article 4751:) The reason I propose such an addition is that I think the article is too quick to accept propositional knowledge as the paradigm case of knowledge. This is appropriately qualified elsewhere in the article, but at present the lead and the first section of the article are concerned almost exclusively with propositional knowledge. If that is the kind about which there is the most to say, I have no problem with the article giving it the most attention. I would just like the article to start from a broader perspective and then narrow in focus (in whatever way is determined to be most appropriate). 802:

in gnosticism and (2) the fact that gnosticism actually is included does not entail that it should be included. This is a problem for many articles that contain a section called "Religion": everyone wants their favorite religion to be included. This can lead to the section growing and growing until editors decide that the section is too bloated and that only the principal religions should be mentioned while everything else is removed. Since it seems unlikely that I've convinced you I suggest that you make the change you suggested and we'll see sooner or later how other editors feel about it.

3618:, Yale University Press, 1996; and other books). So that's one answer to my question: One would need to include sections on rationalism and empiricism if one wanted to argue that they are inadequate doctrines, or at least to describe their strengths and weaknesses and to allow readers to reach their own conclusions about their adequacy. But those motives presuppose that the rationalism versus empiricism issue is still a "live issue" today that is important enough for this article, and that it wouldn't be better to sidestep the whole scholastic discussion, which is what I doubt. 4604:

section on psychological self-knowledge, and a section on knowledge of norms/ethics/morality/right? If I were to do this, I would cite everything to high-quality sources, but (with the possible exception of the first) could not make any claim to an appropriate level of comprehensiveness. (It would be a small research project on my part, but I might also be willing to see what I might be able to turn up in the literature on developmental psychology to supply a stub section on basic knowledge-how such as walking and talking, also for the Definitions section.)

820:

and page clutter and bloat can best be remedied by reorganizing things, instead of by deleting information that could be useful to someone. In order to avoid this problem, I am going to divide the "religion" section into two subsections, "Major World Religions" and "Minor Religions". I hope that will help to alleviate any concerns. If you prefer it as it was before, as only one undivided section, then please feel free to change it back. Hopefully other editors can give input as well. (Also, I notice that knowledge in Buddhism is conspicuously missing.)

3549:. I would question the need for this, as the framing of rationalism versus empiricism as "schools" of epistemology seems too scholastically didactic and historical/outdated for an up-to-date general article on knowledge. Skepticism is different, because it is (considered abstractly) the antithesis or denial of knowledge. It may be true that the section on skepticism is too detailed, but I would advocate that skepticism here should not be considered one among various historical "schools" of epistemology (which is a framing that belongs in 419:(See quote on that link: "Because the teachings in these three different traditions diverged in some important places, people have come to adopt a unique spelling for each so it’s clear which tradition the writer is referring to. Generally speaking, the original Jewish tradition is Kabbalah with a “K”; Christian Cabala is spelled differently and starting with a “C,” while the Western Hermetic tradition spells Qabalah with a “Q.”) The dictionary you mentioned may describe the different spellings as synonyms, and they 778:

by a circle known as a sephira (plural: sephiroth). There are ten sephiroth. Knowledge, known by the Hebrew word "daath", is viewed as an eleventh "false sephira", and is considered to be a hole left by the fall of Adam from the Garden of Eden.(the three references go here)" with any other information being added to other articles? Would that be an acceptable compromise? That would also exclude anything that you feel is not agreed upon between the different references. Although my

476:

precedence over things like Qabalah or Gnosticism, but unless there is an extreme difference in length (for example, if Qabalah had five paragraphs and Judaism had one paragraph), then whatever number of words/sentences is necessary to describe the concept within the given belief systems should be how long the paragraph should be. The paragraph I added for Qabalah may be longer than the paragraphs for many of the other belief systems/religions, but I don't believe it is

4544:

way more about this than they do about anything professional philosophers have to say about anything. I am sure that developmental psychologists, pediatricians, and other researchers in this area use a different terminology than philosophers, but this should still be included with relevant wikilinks if for no other reason than this sort of knowledge is the precondition for all of the other more sophisticated sorts of knowledge discussed in the body of the article.

3504:. Another is that the article currently discusses skepticism but has very little information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism. An in-depth discussion would not be appropriate for this type of overview article but some more information would be preferable. It would also be good to have more information on knowledge management. This could maybe be combined with the discussion of knowledge representation at the end of the article. 136:

depth,'" on page 33 of the Israel Regardie reference. An "imperfect apprehension of creative power" is essentially a "corruption of the divine", no? Also the fact that the reference speaks, on page 34, of Daath coming from "Lucifer", implies that it is a "corruption of the divine." But I acknowledge that perhaps a different wording, something that sticks more closely to the wording used in the reference, instead of "corruption of the divine" could be better.

31: 458:(Note that, although the title of the book for the MacGregor Matthers reference is "The Kabbalah Unvieled," the book contains the quote "I have adopted the form Qabalah, as being more consonant with the Hebrew writing of the word." and uses the spelling "Qabalah" all through-out the book. My understanding is that at the time that book was written , the different meanings of the two spellings were just beginning to be distinguished.) 3309:"Some contemporary epistemologists reject the assumption that knowledge is susceptible to analysis", "Some epistemologists have suggested that there may be multiple senses of the term “knowledge”, and that not all of them require all three elements of the tripartite theory of knowledge", and "Consequently, some epistemologists have suggested that positing a justification condition on knowledge was a false move". 4556:

to briefly discuss knowledge of others. It is a not uncommon theme in modern and contemporary literature and film that a protagonist discovers that they don't "really" know their spouse, or that they never "truly" knew a deceased friend or relative. So this could also be a nice occasion to mention the knowledge afforded by narrative art (even though I do not believe that this should be required for FA status).

415:", which is yet a third thing) are sometimes used interchangeably, but the different spellings are typically used to distinguish different belief systems, especially among those who actually practice one of the three different belief systems. It shouldn't take much time at all to search on Google to learn the different implications that the three different spellings (Qabalah, Kabbalah, and Cabala) have. 3286: 3229: 3133: 2893: 2277: 2109: 1675: 3571:. But there are various other sources that don't. For example, the articles on epistemology from the Stanford, Routledge, MacMillan, and Internet encylopedia of philosophy do not have a prominent discussion of these additional schools. So it may be justifiable to use this approach but by no means necessary. One idea I had was to have them all as subsection of the section "Sources of knowledge": 891:

is not necessarily seen as a source of highest truth. "Notable" would be a more fitting word, in my opinion, instead of "important" for this context. Knowledge is notable within Qabalah for the unique perspective on exactly what "knowledge" is, and it is impossible to adequately explain "knowledge" within Qabalah without comparing and contrasting it with "understanding" and "wisdom".

486:

paragraph for Islam, and is longer than the paragraph for Christianity, but I think we could both agree that Christianity and Islam should deserve more weight than Gnosticism. However, the difference is not significant, and the paragraphs receive the length necessary to adequately explain the concept. So the same should be true for a paragraph to describe knowledge in Qabalah.

3170:: they all have chapters on skepticism (some even several ones) but not on the others. I found a way to mention pragmatism. As for relativism, I don't think it is very important. The sources just mentioned do not contain a substantial discussion of it. The Stanford article doesn't even mention it. As for the section "decolonial scholarship": do you think it should be removed? 130:

transliterating the word from Hebrew to Latin characters, "Daath" seems more common in Qabalah, whereas "Da'at" is perhaps more common in Kabbalah. It is important to understand that in Qabalah, it is not unusual for various seemingly-contradictory beliefs to be held simultaneously. It is a belief system that is very complex and often difficult to comprehend.

3610:, for example, argued in many books that rationalism and empiricism as schools or doctrines are outdated, and that anyone doing factual research today is a ratio-empiricist (or ratioempiricist). On the other hand, Bunge had to discuss the outdated schools or doctrines in order to make his argument (for example, Section 15.2: "Philosophies of Knowledge", in 684:", but is its own article. I'm confused as to how you think that it would be okay to include information about knowledge in Kabbalah, but not knowledge in Qabalah. I'm not aware of one being especially more mainstream or common than another, with the exception that Cabala is definitely more obscure in modern times. I included it in the article 1222: 595:

inclusion in a broad-concept article on knowledge in general. And your comments imply that knowledge is not even an important element in this tradition. There may be better places to include your ideas in other Knowledge articles that deal with topics more closely associated with this tradition. Likely candidates might be

1439:

uncontroversial. It could be replaced with things like "knowledge that kangaroos hop, knowledge that koalas sleep most of the time, knowledge that kookaburras cackle". Or for knowledge-who, the source doesn't mention John F. Kennedy but "knowing who is due to visit". Is that what you had in mind with original research?

4763:, initiated by Phlsph7, in case you have not already noticed it. I'm not sure it's going to result in any sort of generalizable consensus, but quite a few folks have chimed in from various perspectives. On this specific issue, however, I do believe there should be discussion before any attempt at implementation. 3989:

into one line. I dislike it when there are many citations since it can get confusing. Implementing it would be more work since the syntax is different. I don't know if your suggestion would be a vialble solution for all devices. As a first step, I implemented the multiref-solution. Does that work for you?

1106:

the Word, of Chokmah, Wisdom, the All-Father, who is the Will of the All-One. And thus they err with grievous error and dire who prate of Love as the Formula of Magick; Love is unbalanced, void, vague, undirected, sterile nay, more, a very Shell, the prey of abject orts, demonic: Love must be "under will.

2197:– I think this still puts too much emphasis on being about a person. Most of the examples on the IEP section of knowledge by acquaintance are not about people. It would be more accurate to say something to explain that it can be about anything that's experienced, perceived, or interacted with directly. 2135:

Generally speaking, I agree with you that secondary sources are preferable insofar as they usually provide a more detailed discussion. However, for articles on very general topics, like knowledge, it is often more important to provide a good overview rather than go a lot into detail. For this reason,

1415:

The main thing I'm looking at right now is the use of examples. Some of them are arguably original research, and there are places where the inline citations are set after them so that it looks like they come from a source when they don't. The other major issue is the religion section. It's still very

575:

Also, could you please clarify what you meant by "I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence)."? I have read over it several times, but I don't understand. What are "the claims"? And what is "it" in

440:

The writing you suggest might be fine to add to the part of the article regarding knowledge in Judaism, but Kabbalah (the Jewish tradition) and Qabalah (the western esoteric/occult tradition) are definitely not the same thing. I would want to leave it to someone more versed in Kabbalah (as opposed to

350:

There is an eleventh "something" which is definitely not a sephira, but is often shown on modern representations of the Tree. The Cabalistic "explanation" runs as follows: when Malkuth "fell" out of the Garden of Eden it left behind a "hole" in the fabric of the Tree, and this "hole", located

4758:

With respect to the normative stuff, I agree that it does not belong in an epistemology article. But I think there is a strong case that it should be addressed by an article on knowledge in general. With respect to the use of overview sources for articles of extreme generality, you might have a look

4653:

Also, since it wasn't promoted due to doubts about the adequacy of its governing overview sources, I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in this context. Multiple editors agreed that the article would benefit from additional perspectives, notwithstanding the impressively high-standard at which it

4388:

On Foucault’s account, the relation of power and knowledge is far closer than in the familiar Baconian engineering model, for which “knowledge is power” means that knowledge is an instrument of power, although the two exist quite independently. Foucault’s point is rather that, at least for the study

3027:

If a point doesn't warrant its own section, it can always be folded into another section. In this case, science, anthropology, and sociology are all related and could be reorganized if it becomes necessary. With a broad topic article like this one, sometimes a sentence is really all that's needed to

2598:

The usual view among epistemologists is that these are specific sorts of knowledge-that. For example, knowing whether it is 2 p.m. is knowing that it is 2 p.m., if it is; and knowing that it is not 2 p.m., if it is not. Knowing who is due to visit is knowing, for some specified person, that it is he

2382:

I removed the claim about infinitism since it is not explicitly mentioned here. The relation to accidental truth is already discussed in the section "Definition". However, if it is not clear that this sentence describes the Gettier problem, we could add the following source to draw the connection to

2190:

On a related note, it would actually be better if the examples did come from sources when possible. The Gettier case with the barn facades is a good one because that's a well-established example used in academic philosophy. The best examples are the ones that are attributed to specific philosophers,

1105:

For She is omniform as Love and Death, the Great Sea whence all Life springs, and whose black womb re-absorbs all. She thus resumes in herself the duplex process of the Formula of Love under Will Yet let it not be forgotten that though She be love, her function is but passive; she is the vehicle of

890:

an important concept in Qabalah, but I was just pointing out that that claim didn't appear in the citations as far as I can see. The word "important" implies a positive connotation, whereas Qabalah views knowledge in contrast (and, in some ways, comparison) to wisdom and understanding, and knowledge

801:

The shortened version suggested in your last edit is an improvement over the current version. However, I'm still not convinced why a minor tradition in which knowledge plays no important role should be included. The comparison with gnosticism fails for two reasons: (1) knowledge plays a central role

112:

Thanks for your message, and for inviting discussion and clarification first instead of automatically reverting. It's always nice when an editor raises objections civilly, as sadly so many editors are not so civil. I apologize that I had mistakenly put the incorrect page number the first time; I had

86:

a corruption of divine, whereas the sephira for wisdom (known by the Hebrew word "chokmah") and the sephira for understanding (known by the Hebrew word "binah"), are distinguished from knowledge and are viewed, unlike knowledge, as being related to actual truth. Knowledge (Daath) is viewed as having

4607:

The idea would be to create space in the structure of the article that might invite more knowledgeable folks to make small, incremental contributions without having to take on a whole project. I think this could help to improve the article along the lines of the FAC results, but such underdeveloped

4574:

I believe, however, that this article would benefit a great deal from the attention of editors approaching it from the perspectives of developmental psychology, speech or physical therapy, or pedagogy—among, I am sure, many other relevant disciplines. This is actually what I would most like to see.

4555:

I continue to believe that individual self-knowledge deserves its own section. Even if this is not reflected in the indices of non-philosophical sources in the terms a philosopher would prefer, this is a huge issue in the psychotheraputic project. A section on this would also provide an opportunity

3140:

The only real concern here is the amount of weight given to different epistemological schools of thought. Empiricism and rationalism, arguably the two most important, are given adequate coverage in sources of knowledge, though they could be distinguished more clearly. Some major schools of thought,

2734:

Knowledge of the conventional truth informs us how things are conventional, from the ordinary commonsense perspective and thus grounds our epistemic practice in its proper linguistic and conceptual conventional framework. Knowledge of the ultimate truth informs us of how things really are ultimate,

1689:

Another thing to keep an eye on is that the tone of the article seems a bit off. It's not a serious issue, but at a few points it kind of feels like I'm reading a scientific journal instead of a summary of scientific journals. Extra focus should be put on summarizing the information that exists and

1438:

Could you point out which examples you have in mind? I had a look at the first few concrete examples I could find. The bird-example is found in Klein 1998. The "2 + 2 = 4" example is found in Hetherington 2022. The Canberra example is not found in the sources but this seems to be rather trivial and

777:

How would you feel if the part about knowledge in Qabalah is shortened to "In the western esoteric belief system of Qabalah (see also: Kabbalah), emanations of creation are symbolized in a diagram known as the "tree of life." Each emanation, or aspect of creation, is represented on the tree of life

747:

I don't see that any of the sources disagree as to whether or not knowledge stands in contrast to understanding and wisdom. The sources all seem to agree, as far as I can tell, that daath (knowledge) is, at least in some way, a path that connects binah (wisdom) and chokmah (understanding), and that

4543:

I think that, in addition to a section addressing my concerns in the prior bullet, the Definitions section should have as its first subsection something about the "knowledge-how" to, for instance, walk and converse in a natural language. Way more people (basically everyone who has had a baby) care

4537:

In a response yesterday, with reference to R. J. Bernstein's presentation of pragmatism, I made the case that analytic philosophy cannot be accepted as the philosophical authority on knowledge; there is another family of theories that must also be covered. I believe, at minimum, that this requires

3988:

It seems opinions are divided on this issue. As far as I know, there two good ways to address this issue. The simpler one is to replace template "multiref2" with "multiref". It uses separate lines for citations but in a compact way. The second way is to use the sfnm template. It puts all citations

1859:

Each type should give a clear definition at the beginning of its section. It doesn't mean anything to readers that propositional knowledge "is the paradigmatic type of knowledge in analytic philosophy" if they don't even know what propositional knowledge is. This is especially the case for readers

1498:

I've adjusted various of the examples used. As for the placement of references: I don't think that a reference after a specific example or claim implies that this specific example or claim is found in the source. Instead, it only implies that the source supports this example or claim. For example,

1400:

I think I've addressed all the main points by now. For most, I've implemented them directly in the article. For some, I've added comments here and you have already responded to them except for the ones I just added now. It might be good if you could take a look to see if these implementations were

819:

I agree that it could potentially become a problem where many minor religious traditions are added, making the section too bloated. However, my Knowledge philosophy (see my user page for a longer explanation) is that, the vast majority of the time, more information is better than less information,

688:

because there is a rather specific and unique view as to what "knowledge" is within Qabalah. Gnosticism is included in the knowledge article, and if anything, it seems Qabalah is more commonly practiced in today's world than is Gnosticism, although there is some overlap and cross-influence between

4227:

is that there is a consistent established citation style within this article. FA reviewers have no right to unilaterally impose, as a condition for FA status, their own preferred citation style on an article that already has a consistent established citation style. Personally I don't see anything

3605:

I don't see why the sections on rationalism and empiricism would be necessary, and your response doesn't provide any justification for them. Discussing them as separate schools seems outdated, too scholastic (in the pejorative sense) for a general article on knowledge today. The two terms roughly

1711:

I've tried to solve this issue through reformulations or by giving examples but I'm not sure that it's sufficient. In many cases, the problem is that the academic discourse on the topic is huge and opinions are divided. The easiest way to express this without giving undue weight to a few specific

475:

As for the length of the paragraphs, they should be as long as is necessary to adequately describe the concept within the given belief systems, without giving undue weight. The views of knowledge within the major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) should certainly take

4603:

This is just to check in and test the water; for I'm not sure when I might actually get to this, even if it finds support. But how would involved editors feel about me creating sections on probably the following areas: something from pragmatism and hermeneutics for the Definitions section, a new

4549:

I am embarrassed to have missed this until now, but how is there no discussion of knowledge of what is right, what is moral, what is just, how best to live, et cetera? Someone writing an overview of analytic epistemology can excuse themselves from addressing such issues on the ground that these

2183:

sources. If you're describing a philosopher's beliefs or arguments, it's better to find an article or a book that analyzes that philosopher rather than quoting that philosopher's work directly. But again, that doesn't mean these primary sources are unreliable, and these primary sources are much

2150:

I completely agree that tertiary sources have more value on an article like this relative to other articles, and there's no need to go through and start replacing all of them. Just be careful not to make it overly dependent on them. Literature reviews or similarly broad secondary sources can be

1017:

said is not supported by the sources. (I haven't read the sources myself.) Phlsph7's complaint that knowledge doesn't contrast with understanding and wisdom doesn't seem especially relevant, since even in the cited passage the terms are differentiated for the purpose of discussion. If you think

594:

If I understand you correctly, the paragraph is not intended about Kabbalah in general but about a more narrow strand (associated with the Hermetic tradition) that is to be clearly distinguished from the Jewish and the Christian forms of Kabbalah. I don't think that such a narrow subject merits

135:

Daath being a "corruption of the divine" can be inferred from, "and remembering in what sense the Bible speaks of the verb 'to know,' we gather that the root of the trouble was an imperfect apprehension of creative power - towards the 'darkly splendid world wherein continually lieth a faithless

4561:

I still think that a FA on knowledge needs a section on the various ways that apparently neutral or objective knowledge is sometimes anything but. I concede, however, that I have not made a knock-down case for the inclusion of anything specific. I'm not going to make any non-minor edits to the

4532:

At this stage, I am mostly (if not completely) satisfied that the article does everything that it accepts as within its scope at the FA level. I am entirely unsatisfied, however, with respect to what I take to be the arbitrary and artificial restriction of this scope to (for the most part) the

4321:

shortened footnotes have unnecessary location info, unnecessary because the same location info is in the full reference. The only instances where the location info is needed in the shortened footnotes is when the location is a subset of the location info in the full reference. I will strip all

3184:

The most important thing is that the sources have been evaluated for these things. As far as decolonial scholarship, I wouldn't remove it entirely, but it should probably be reduced. Personally, I would summarize it in a sentence under anthropology or sociology (or wherever it might fit best).

1961:

The distinction between higher and lower knowledge matters mostly to religion so it could be moved there. But it also refers to different types of knowledge, so I think the section "Types" is also fine. It might be better to keep it here since, as you say, the section "Religion" already is too

1519:

As for the religion section, I think it should mention the main religions but maybe the amount of detail could be further reduced. Especially Buddhism and Hinduism matter here since knowledge plays such a central role in them. I would remove the paragraph on the Qabalah since this is clearly a

689:

Gnosticism and Qabalah. I started to also add information about knowledge in Kabbalah to the paragraph about Judaism, but decided against it, because I don't feel myself informed enough about Kabbalah, and I generally only write information on Knowledge about topics of which I feel well-versed.

485:

is what should matter, not a slight difference in word count. Sometimes a few more words are simply necessary to explain one concept as opposed to another concept; that doesn't mean that concept is more important. Note that the paragraph for "Gnosticism" is approximately the same length as the

4754:

I did not overlook the paragraph on self-knowledge in Others, and I have no problem with it as a concise account from a philosophical perspective (as it is explicitly presented). What I am suggesting would improve the article would be an account from a more psychological perspective, that is,

4464:

If I understand it correctly, the change is based on the claim that the original passage misrepresents Foucault. I don't see how the sentence quoted above supports this claim since our formulation is rather vague and does not mention Bacon. One simple solution could be to restore the original

3590:

The current text in that section would stay as it is and these subsections would come after that. But I'm not yet convinced that this is the best approach. Maybe the better path would just be to avoid this bigger change and only get the size of skepticism section down a little by summarizing.

3511:

has 7 subsubsection. I think a lot of summarizing could be done here. The text on philosophical skepticism is also quite detailed and could be shortened to leave more room for other schools of epistemology. These changes would ensure that the article does not grow too much overall despite the

3293:

All images are Creative Commons or public domain. I suspect that the diagrams are ineligible for copyright and automatically in the public domain. Some of the images feel vaguely decorative, but I think they have sufficient relevance, especially since this is a broad concept article. Captions

1102:

gives descriptions of Binah and Chokmah which clearly stand in contrast to its description of Daath. For the sake of brevity, I will only quote only one small section where they are both being described together, which is hopefully enough to show that they are contrasted with the way Daath is

885:

is quite short, and there are many rather elementary aspects of Qabalah that are not even mentioned in its article. When I mentioned that about the sentence "The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah sees knowledge as an important element and refers to it as Daath." in Phlsph7's

3012:

I've tried to include some of what you mentioned here, such as the section on sociology and some shorter mentions of others. The problem is that this field is just too big: there are countless other types of "X knowledge" and they can't all be included. If they don't belong to the main types

1779:

The opening sentence is less than ideal. I've read the relevant talk page discussion, and while "is often understood as" is a tolerable compromise, I think a better one can be found. If I were to rewrite it, I would make the first sentence very broad and then describe the caveats in the next

1069:

And these five principles culminate in a sixth, Daath, Knowledge. But this is not really a principle; it contains in itself the germ of self-contradiction and so of self-destruction. It is a false principle: for, as soon as Knowledge is analysed, it breaks up into the irrational dust of the

1049:

It acts as a self-evolved link between the higher Genius, on the one hand, at peace in its Supernal abode, and, on the other hand, the human soul bound by its Fall to the world of illusion and sense and matter. Not until that self-consciousness and acquired knowledge are turned to noble and

147:

Daath is NOT a sephira. Note the quote from the Low, Colin (1991) reference which explicitly states, "Daath is *not* a sephira; it is a hole." Daath is viewed in Qabalah as being a "false sephira". Although interpretations of concepts in Qabalah can be radically different depending on the

1032:

My main point was that the strong contrast between knowledge and wisdom/understanding in our previous version is not reflected in the cited source. But I agree that these terms are not identical either. In its current form, it does not matter much whether we use the term "contrasted" or

129:

article. Perhaps a new section should be added to that article to describe the differences in how Daath/Da'at is viewed in Qabalah as opposed to Kabbalah.) The section I added to the knowledge article is describing the concept in Qabalah, not Kabbalah. Although there are various ways of

4766:

All that said, in the absence of a consensus, I am going to hold off on any major edits in order to avoid even the appearance of having opposed the nomination in order to impose my own views on the article. I am re-following, however, to participate in any further discussion that might

1110:

I would go on, but for the sake of brevity I will not. Hopefully those quotes help to elaborate and explain. As it is, I am content with the current version of the paragraph about Qabalah in the Knowledge article. I am fine with either "contrasted" or "differentiated." I will also add

2920:

I've opted instead for including a short general characterization of epistemology. Many of the sources cited before do not include a lot of information on the intellectual history of the discipline and only discuss it insofar as it relates to other, more specific issues. Our article

4708:

Someone writing an overview of analytic epistemology can excuse themselves from addressing such issues on the ground that these issues are better discussed under the separate heading of metaethics. A general article on knowledge, however, cannot take recourse to such an artificial

2472:

G. E. Moore has pointed out that an argument succeeds only to the extent that its premises are more plausible than the conclusion. So if we encounter an argument whose conclusion we find much more implausible than the denial of the premises, then we can turn the argument on its

1976:

It could really go either way, which is why I presented it as a question rather than a recommendation. And yeah, theory of forms is more of a metaphysics thing. It does have implications for different levels of knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be included.

2575:

American Heritage Dictionary + Magee & Popper (1971): Both sources support the claim. Article quotes the example sentence from the dictionary. Note that this is a pairing of a tertiary and a primary source. Replacing both of these with a single secondary source would be an

4527:

is quite long and more folks will see this here than will read anything in the archives there. I cite only myself. If for any reason this is not appropriate, please revert on your own authority and explain on my talk page. I'm only sharing what I think might help improve the

2237:

It should work in this form. If I personally were writing it, I would use this space to describe the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge, and then I would cover epistemic relativism (including the idea that knowledge is inherently situated) lower in the article.

1308:

I've been meaning to take on one of your GA nominations for a while. Given the nature of this article, I'm going to pay special attention to criteria 1a and 3, and I expect to work through the article and its sources over the next few days before posting the initial review.

834:

I removed the "Major World Religions" and "Minor Religions" headings as a questionable division, since the so-called minor religions in question don't seem to me to be very separate from the so-called major ones. (Also, by the way, headings should be in sentence case per

4829:

Thanks for the link. This is indeed the sort of thing I had in mind. You are also right to question "care way more". What I meant, but did not write, is that it matters the most inasmuch as it is the sort of foundational knowledge upon which other more developed forms

1453:

Yes, this is what I'm referring to. It seems to be a gray area in terms of original research. I think the ideal usage would be to have each example attributed to a source, but it's difficult to say how much that's required and how much it can be deviated from. The

786:

about how knowledge contrasts with wisdom and understanding, because Qabalah treats them as distinct, whereas in other contexts they are sometimes used as synonyms, especially "understanding" and "knowledge" are sometimes treated as synonyms outside of Qabalah.

902:, but I think at least a sentence or two about knowledge in Qabalah has a place within the knowledge article, because of the specific and notable ways that knowledge is viewed within Qabalah, and because of how Qabalah has had a great deal of influence on many 480:

longer, and it was longer only because it required more words to succinctly describe the concept. I don't think that a paragraph being a sentence or so longer or shorter than another paragraph is important; that is not a *substantial* difference. The amount of

998:

As for some of the other side notes: it's true that not mentioning Buddhism is an important oversight and that the paragraphs on Abrahamic religions do not contain very "original" claims. I'll do some research to see if I can do something about these points.

1766:

I've highlighted the most important ones below, but as a rule try to only use jargon if it's directly relevant. And when it is used, define it immediately for the reader. We can assume that the reader has some basic philosophical training for articles like

4562:

article while it is under FAC review. If, however, you would like me to edit what little is included about Foucault, I would be happy to do so—subject (of course!) to reversion, should anything be deemed for any reason not an improvement to the article.

113:

copy-pasted the reference from another article where the same book was also used as a reference so that I wouldn't have to type it all out again, and I didn't realize that I had forgotten to change the page number. First of all, note that the article

4833:

For the reasons stated in my previous post (i.e., avoiding the assumption that propositional knowledge is paradigmatic), I would prefer it appear as a short, one-paragraph definition near the top of the article. But I agree that it would also fit in

1962:

detailed as it is. I would be happy to include something about Plato's theory of forms on this if there are some good sources. On a quick search, I couldn't find anything substantial in relation to the terms "higher knowledge" and "lower knowledge".

4566:

In my first post to this discussion, I expressed considerable reservations (or, if you prefer, outright confusion) over what might constitute a "comprehensive" treatment of such a general issue. It has come to my attention, however, that there is

3726:{{multiref2 | {{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=}} | {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=}} | {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=}} | {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}} | {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}} | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}} }}</ref: --> 2214:

I've tried to solve this issue by leaving out the discussion of relativism. However, I don't think that these are two distinct concepts, like mouse as an animal vs mouse as an input device. Also from Hunter 2009 in the following paragraph:

936:

Frankly, I would be fine with removing all the paragraphs about each brand-name Abrahamic religion. What each of them says doesn't seem original to me. "It's good and it comes from God." Yeah, I get it, do we need three paragraphs to say

2222:

seems to state. Grossly oversimplified, the two parts of the section are "situated knowledge is defined as..." and "feminists claim that all knowledge is situated knowledge". Do you think the section works in its current, modified form?

3318:"Some philosophers are beginning to wonder whether such a result should even undermine their confidence in knowledge’s being something more than a justified true belief — in particular, its being a non-Gettiered justified true belief." 3092:

A lot of detail has been added on knowledge in religion, beyond the broad overview this article should provide. I would suggest reducing this section to a few paragraphs with the main ideas and then moving the details to a sub-article.

869:

Thanks for joining the discussion. I'm fine with removing the headings that I added; they were just an attempt to avoid potential objections by organizing things further. I'll keep that in mind about sentence case; thanks for informing

2912:

isn't really a good option right now. But a brief section here summarizing the study of knowledge and the history of knowledge is probably due. Such a section could also serve as a template to help improve epistemology article in the

1737:

Yeah, I realize that especially with these general points, there's not always going to be a perfect way to do it. Consider these to be "try to move toward this" advice rather than a specific list of things that needs to be corrected.

990:

Unfortunately, the recent changes re-import 2 problems already pointed out in earlier versions: (1) the claim that knowledge contrasts with understanding and wisdom seems to be refuted by one of the sources (Regardie 2000 pp. 33-4:

4800:

the Definitions section should have as its first subsection something about the "knowledge-how" to, for instance, walk and converse in a natural language. Way more people (basically everyone who has had a baby) care way more about

2307:

On the one hand, it could be held that knowing a person (place or thing) should be construed as nothing more (or less) than knowing certain facts about that someone...Nevertheless, it is knowledge of facts, so-called propositional

2127:

sources like dictionaries and encyclopedias. They're generally reliable and they're much better than having no source at all, so they're likely going to be good enough for GA, but it might be worthwhile to find more secondary

3841:{{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=}}; {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=}}; {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=}}; {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}}; {{harvnb|DePoe|2022}}; {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}}</ref: --> 158:

can be ascribed to one of the sephirot, or to one of the paths that connect the sephirot. If they were considered to be the same thing, then they wouldn't have separate locations on the tree of life. Given that it is not

141:

As for the part saying "Knowledge (Daath) is viewed as having no true qualities of its own", this can be found in the Colin 1991 reference on page 252 in the quote, "Daath has no manifest qualities and cannot be invoked

3056:

Value of knowledge doesn't really say much about the practical aspects of knowledge. It just leaves it at a couple of examples (the student and the doctor). More could be said about how knowledge is used by society and

1847:

The first paragraph of this section doesn't serve a clear purpose. It's valuable information, but it doesn't clearly establish how the types of knowledge are different. I don't speak French, so the difference between

1780:

sentences (summarizing the definitions section in the process). Maybe something as simple as "Knowledge is a state of awareness or familiarity." I admit that's also not perfect, but it's an approach worth considering.

2737:

The section "Yogācāra" goes more into the details of how this relates to the senses. But you are right that this source is not perfect. I moved it one sentence to the right so that the claim is now also covered by

2080:

The science section has the opposite problem, where I can't really tell what the main point is because it doesn't provide any real insight beyond "the scientific method exists" and "Francis Bacon was involved in

4579:

Don't be shy about pinging me about any of the above that you would like to work on, but upon which you would be interested in further context from me. By default, however, I would encourage everyone to just be

3522:

I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would slowly get started to implement them one at a time.

168:

So, to conclude, I agree to changing the wording from "corruption of the divine" to something else, and I agree to removal of the part that says "and are viewed, unlike knowledge, as being related to actual

153:

It can be inferred that knowledge is distinguished from understanding and wisdom by the fact that the are represented by different sephirot (or false sephira, in the case of knowledge.) Qabalah teaches that

3157:

To me, it seems justified to have more emphasis on skepticism than on the others because that's what reliable sources tend to do. For example, have a look at the tables of content of the following sources:

2187:

Check where the inline citations are placed. I noticed instances where the citation was placed after an example that was made up for this article, which makes it look like the example comes from the source.

4383:

revert? I dropped the matter during the FAC review, but as written it misrepresents Foucault's basic position (especially when juxtaposed with the preceding sentence). For instance, from the SEP article:

2379:

A basic objection to the foundationalist’s and coherentist’s accounts of justification is that neither seems to be able to show that a true belief which satisfied their accounts would be non-accidentally

1554:, and then any supporting details can be added as necessary. And as I said below, this information doesn't necessarily have to be deleted; this is the sort of thing that can be moved to a child article. 83:

and thanks for looking up the page numbers. But the recently added paragraph on knowledge in the Qabalah However still has various problems. For example, I don't think that the claims that knowledge is

4242:

I think you are right: consistency within the article is the key factor here. To that end, I bundled all the remaining references using the multiref template. Feel free to implement your suggestion.

1813:

Others seek a common core among diverse examples of knowledge, such as Paul Silva's "awareness first" epistemology or Barry Allen's definition of knowledge as "superlative artifactual performance".

1594:

Thanks for the feedback. It seems the three of us are in agreement so I removed that paragraph. I also removed various other details on the individual religions. I hope this works as a compromise.

163:

stated that knowledge is less related to "actual truth", I won't object if you want to remove specifically the part that says "and are viewed, unlike knowledge, as being related to actual truth."

1825:

Other approaches include defining it in regard to the cognitive role it plays in providing reasons for doing or thinking something or seeing it as the most general factive mental state operator.

3149:, are overlooked. Skepticism, on the other hand, is given its own section. Similarly, decolonial scholarship has its own section on par with science, religion, and anthropology despite being a 851:

article if you find this article's coverage insufficient—"all the info" doesn't have to be in this particular article. And if knowledge isn't important enough in Qabalah to be discussed in the

1884:– This should be rewritten to be more precise. I would suggest treating humans and higher animals in two separate sentences. Also, it should be moved to the section on propositional knowledge. 1647:. Given the hours you've put into this and the massive improvement in the article since you began nearly a year ago, you've definitely earned it. I'll go ahead and mark this review as passed. 411:, as they are different things. "Qabalah" refers to the western esoteric/occult tradition, whereas "Kabbalah" refers to the Jewish practice. The different spellings (along with the spelling " 2055:– We shouldn't state that something "seems" to be the case. Maybe it "can be difficult" or "it becomes difficult", but it's not Knowledge's place to say that something "seems" a certain way. 3689:. To my eye (and this may be matter of personal taste?) this is far too much white space between short citations, especially given that the standard spacing between reference list items is 2087:– This doesn't really say anything. "It's different because what it talks about is different." Either it should clarify how the subject matter is unique, or this sentence should be removed. 1690:

providing clear encyclopedia-style descriptions of each topic as soon as it's introduced or a new section starts. The number of original/arbitrary examples might also be playing into this.

944:

I agree that seems to be important, so I added a clause about that based on what you've said about it. Please check it to make sure that what I wrote is accurate according to the sources.

1052:(Note that "the Supernal Abode" or "the Supernal triad" refer to wisdom (Binah), understanding (Chokmah), as well as the highest Sephira (Kether), which is usually translated as "crown.") 351:

in the center of the Abyss, is called Daath, or Knowledge. Daath is *not* a sephira; it is a hole. This may sound like gobbledy-gook, and in the sense that it is only a metaphor, it is.

1712:

philosophers is to say: some claim this, others claim that. This is also how many reliable sources handle the issue, like the following ones I came across while dealing with this issue:

4524: 3553:) but as a more basic negation of some claim to knowledge or the possibility of knowledge. In short: there's no need in this article for a discussion of more "schools" of epistemology. 1815:– This essentially name drops philosophers without context. Instead, consider a one or two sentence description of what "common core among diverse examples of knowledge" actually means. 1866:– This is the sort of thing that would be better fit to introduce the Types section. It's not specifically about propositional knowledge, it's about the nature of the different types. 4726:, about the psychological study of "people's beliefs regarding the characteristics of knowledge and knowing". I mention that because you are interested in developmental psychology. 2550:

Normally, I would agree. However, García-Arnaldos 2020 is freely available while O'Brien 2016 isn't. By keeping it, users who don't have access can at least check the basic claim.

962:, just that understanding and wisdom are more related to higher/spiritual truth, and knowledge more "earthly" in nature. I made a slight change; let me know how it looks to you. 1379:

Thanks for the detailed and sensible comments. I'll work through them and post some replies as I go along. I'll ping you when I think that all the main issues have been solved.

3476:, which made it go away on this page - if there's pushback on that, we can always remove the "Excerpt" template that's pulling it in and replace it with a summary of the lead. 843:

that the Qabalah information is very esoteric (you can also read that as a pun if you wish) and is, as currently written, peripheral to the subject of this article. Regarding

148:

source/individual Qabalah practitioner, the view that Daath is a "false sephira" is, as far as I am aware, universally held. This could be different in Kabbalah; I don't know.

4209:

reviewers can be quite particular about the citation style so by going either with multiref or sfnm, we would be on the safe side once the article is ready for a nomination.

3061:

individuals who associate themselves with similar identities, like age-influenced, professional, religious, and ethnic identities, tend to embody similar forms of knowledge.

3122:

Some of the examples are given undue weight. I've mentioned above how it might be advisable to change how examples are used, but a few in particular go on for a while. The

603:. With some adjustments, the material could be added there. As a side note: many of your comments are very long. Being concise may be better for talk page exchanges, see 1950:

Would the concept of "higher knowledge" be more appropriate for the religion section? Or does it also have applications in other branches of philosophy? I wonder if the

4699:, which is a paragraph about self-knowledge. Did you overlook that paragraph, or is there some reason why you think the article needs a new paragraph on self-knowledge? 4650:

I was only offering out of a sense of obligation after having pressed for them during the FAC. So I will happily take this as a free pass to leave the work to others.

1643:: I think that's everything! This is a hell of a first good article. In case you weren't aware (or just a reminder if you were), this GA is eligible for the award at 4636:, this type of decision should be based on the weight given to the topics in overview sources. The overview sources that I'm aware of don't support these additions. 4422:

Perhaps consider restoring the change and editing for clarity? Otherwise, if this is your only objection, I will probably revert and make an effort to do so myself.

2011:

This section is a bit long and might need some reorganizing. The first paragraph could probably be turned into two: one about perception and one about introspection.

1260: 4719:. I would want to see some overview sources that treat moral knowledge as an important category of knowledge to justify including such a section in this article. 4550:

issues are better discussed under the separate heading of metaethics. A general article on knowledge, however, cannot take recourse to such an artificial excuse.

3104:

I've removed many of the less important details from the section "Religion". For now, I've left the paragraph on the Qabalah as it is. What are your thoughts?

1250: 3336:"Some empiricists have argued that one arrives at the concept of red, for example, by mentally abstracting from one’s experience of individual red items." 416: 4760: 4633: 1481: 3126:, while definitely important enough to be mentioned, probably shouldn't be given more than one sentence. The Ford/BMW example also goes on for a while. 1227: 528:

Also, may I ask which specific claims you are referring to with "We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree."?

4205:

Personally, I wouldn't object. However, I haven't seen this style in other articles while the styles of multiref/multiref2 and sfnm are common. Some

3567:

I just started my research on this point so your timing is optimal. There are sources that use this approach. For example, see chapters 2 and 3 from

4340:, repeat the chapter title even though the full reference template already includes the chapter. This is not the case for all location infos, as in 3383:

What the Gettier cases show is that this condition is insufficient to capture all the ways in which accidental truth is incompatible with knowledge.

877:(except for in a quote in a reference), either, but I doubt many would argue that Christianity doesn't have a place in this article. (Note that the 624:"I think the claims in it should be covered the sources cited (the reference to the American Heritage Dictionary is needed for the first sentence)." 4688:; the "Other definitions" section there starts with a short paragraph on pragmatism. That article is linked in a couple of places in this article. 3519:. So they would have to be replaced with regular text. Various other technical changes would be needed but they would mostly be minor changes. 3001:

might also be relevant, even if it's just a sentence or two. How accessible knowledge is (and has been historically) should be covered as well.

2066:– This is another example of "show, don't tell". Simply state that few philosophers defend it, and the reader will interpret that it is radical. 3473: 1783:

The first paragraph goes into a lot of detail. We don't need to describe the details of arguments as much as just state what the arguments are.

1090:

The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge)

91:

The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge.

1906:– It goes on to name the distinctions without clearly defining them for the reader. But as I said below, this paragraph might be undue anyway. 993:

The Qabalistic Sephirah of Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah on the Tree of Life, the child of Wisdom and Understanding -knowledge

847:'s "more information is better than less information" philosophy, keep in mind that you can always create a subsection about knowledge in the 196:

an actual sephira, the Regardie source states on page 71 "The horns spring from Daath (Knowledge) which is not, properly speaking, a Sephira"

4176: 4162: 4149: 4136: 4119: 4102: 4077: 3929: 3917: 3906: 3895: 3880: 3865: 3822: 3809: 3797: 3785: 3769: 3753: 3405: 3013:

discussed in detail by main sources, it's often difficult to find non-arbitrary criteria to decide what is required and what would be undue.

3005:

generally applies to all of this. Sources of knowledge, science, and/or anthropology might benefit from a few more sentences on these topics.

2547:

Good. If García-Arnaldos (2020) doesn't fully support the claim, it might be better to delete it and just use the new O'Brien (2016) source.

1992: 1686:

Long paragraphs make complex articles like this more difficult to read. I broke up one of them myself, but it's worth keeping an eye out for.

1299: 325: 1499:

the adjusted knowledge-who example about the dinner is supported by Hetherington 2022 even though this source does not talk about a dinner.

93:

Is it a sephira or not? Does it contrast with wisdom and understanding or not? Many of the characteristics ascribed to Daath in the article

4450:

Not really sure how to respond to that, but I will restore my edit and then attempt to reword in a more accessible (modern?) prose style.

3606:

correspond to different sources of knowledge (reasoning and sensory experience), but why separate those sources into competing "schools"?

942:

it is impossible to adequately explain "knowledge" within Qabalah without comparing and contrasting it with "understanding" and "wisdom".

507:

viewed as a "false sephira." This may not be the case in Kabbalah, I don't know, but I am not aware of any source that states that it is

2975:. It gets into related concepts (like know-that vs know-how), but it might warrant a mention of its own, even if it's just one sentence. 1480:

You are right that the policy is not explicit on how to understand such cases. I've followed your suggestions and asked the question at

3500:

in its current state because it leaves out some central topics. One point is that the article may need a short overview section of the

4256:

One alternative for the point you mentioned would be to remove the period after the sfn-citations by replacing them with "<ref: -->

4695:. I'm not sure why that article is not linked at the first occurrence of "self-knowledge" in this article, in the first paragraph of 4389:

of human beings, the goals of power and the goals of knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know.

1580:

as too esoteric. It cites primary sources that don't establish the importance of the paragraph to the topic of knowledge in general.

4898: 4568: 2034:– The article should talk about the concepts, not the expressions. Instead of "refers to", describe what the structure of knowledge 934:(except for in a quote in a reference), either, but I doubt many would argue that Christianity doesn't have a place in this article. 2489:

Agree that the source supports it but it's not obvious that it does. And as above, always lean toward adding the secondary source.

2219:. As I understand it, we have one general concept here that is applied in feminist literature in a specific way. This is also what 1909:

Situated knowledge seems to be talking about two things at once. It starts by talking about know-how knowledge before switching to

3716:

to separate short citations in ref tags we use semicolons instead. The difference can be seen in the second and third examples in

423:

are used interchangeably, but they are usually only used interchangeably by those who are not especially well-versed in the topic.

3447: 2533:

You are right: some of the details of the description were not covered by that source. I've added another source to cover that.

1336:

and thanks for taking the time to review this article. I'll try to be responsive and reply to your comments in a timely manner.

1232: 1255: 4749:

Noticed just before posting that your suggestion was actually to add it to another article, not the first section of this one.

4571:

to replace this language with what is already policy elsewhere in terms of being unlikely to benefit from further additions.

4322:

unnecessary location info from the shortened footnotes unless you can think of a rationale for them that I am overlooking?

3940:

This use of semicolons followed by a period after the last short citation also seems more stylistically congruent with the

2735:

from the ultimate analytical perspective and so takes our minds beyond the bounds of conceptual and linguistic conventions.

1206:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

291: 4711:

I don't understand why this would be an artificial excuse. I think it's perfectly reasonable to cover this subject in the

3348:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4755:

something addressing the challenges of knowing one's own individual self. I am not, however, qualified to write on this.

2656: 4886:. Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies. New York: Springer. p. 3. 4798:

said in the FAC review text above may point to an important distinction not yet covered in this article. Patrick said:

4747:

Thanks for the response! If I add something about pragmatism and/or hermeneutics, it would be as another definition. (

4692: 4632:

since wide-scope articles like this one shouldn't have sections on every single philosophical tradition. As discussed

2120:

picks up no obvious plagiarism. Sources appear to be reliable. The one that might be an issue is "quotationspage.com".

1055:

As for an earlier claim that was objected to, that knowledge "has no true qualities of its own", that can be found in

4408:

Your additions were overly verbose and added little...."the nature of"..."examined what he analyzed"..."By way of"??

4047:+ semicolons (or periods) + terminal period after the final short citation would make the style most consistent with 718:

My comments are as long as necessary to describe what I am trying to describe, but I will attempt to be more concise.

1864:

The distinctions between the major types are usually drawn based on the linguistic formulations used to express them

1704:

There are a few phrases to the effect of "some philosophers believe", which should probably be clarified or removed.

1856:

is meaningless to me. This either needs to be reworked or moved to a more appropriate place (likely a bit of both).

626:

this refers to my earlier proposal of how the material on the Kabbalah could be included. The proposal starts with

38: 3496:

I'm considering to prepare this article for a featured article candidacy at some point. I think it would fail the

2791:

Could you point to where it supports lower knowledge as being used or mundane/conventional things or common sense?

2739: 2519:

Bolisani & Bratianu (2018): Good. Thesis of the article supports this claim, serves as a supplementary source.

1803:– avoid self-referential phrases when possible. The sentence should still make sense if "listed above" is deleted. 3268: 3195: 3086: 3038: 2949: 2826: 2769: 2694: 2613: 2603:

There's also a Pritchard (2013) inline citation there. If it doesn't support the sentence, it should be removed.

2499: 2407: 2333: 2248: 2161: 1988: 1934: 1878:

I had to read the occurrent/dispositional paragraph twice to understand it. It might need to be simplified a bit.

1748: 1657: 1564: 1468: 1426: 1367: 1319: 1293: 1187: 1096:

was the personal secretary of the author Aleister Crowley, and the two even lived together for a length of time.)

1082:

DAATH. Knowledge, child of Chokmah and Binah in one sense, in the other the empty and structureless condition of

881:

article does, however, contain the word "Daath", which is translated as "knowledge" in English.) The article for

217:. It seems to me that various claims made in the paragraph are based on personal interpretations and fall under 4819: 4731: 4685: 4327: 4233: 4196: 4028: 3978: 3717: 3623: 3558: 3462: 1585: 1023: 981: 949: 860: 748:

it is different from wisdom and understanding. Can you point out anywhere in those sources that says otherwise?

59: 2200:

After reading the sources of "Situated knowledge" more closely, it seems they confirm what I said above about

1786:

Is there a reason why the second paragraph talks about foundationalists and coherentists but not infinitists?

1065:

DAATH —Knowledge— is not a Sephira. It is not on the Tree of Life; that is, there is in reality no such thing

4842: 4775: 4662: 4619: 4593: 4499: 4455: 4427: 4398: 903: 4477:

or something similar. I assume this would solve Patrick's concern while also addressing the prose concern.

3515:

I think it's not a good idea for featured articles to use excerpts, especially if they are from stubs like

2023:– We shouldn't say in wikivoice what's important and what isn't. Instead, just describe what role it plays. 250:. To this hidden knowledge belongs the idea that the divine reveals itself through 10 emanations, known as 174:

Please let me know if you still have any questions or if I have failed to adequately address your concerns.

3236:

There seem to have been some disputes about the religion section in mid-February. Has this been resolved?

3094: 2978: 2743:

The lower knowledge is of the intellect and the senses and comprises all empirical and objective knowledge

2201: 1914: 1644: 1546:

It definitely needs some condensing. One option would be to talk more about how knowledge intersects with

1274: 4807: 4629: 3457:? This article is not part of a series of articles on AI, so that navbox shouldn't be transcluded here. 3150: 2990: 2017:– This definition doesn't add much. Without more context, it's practically just a synonym for "sources". 1904:

The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is closely related to two other distinctions

1768: 1521: 3327:"Indeed, some scholars think that this last weaker claim was the only goal of Ryle’s original argument" 2475:

If it's not obvious that this is about common sense then we could add the following additional source:

2096:

The forms of communication listed are limited, and online communication especially suggests recentism.

1882:

It is usually agreed that mainly humans and maybe other higher animals possess propositional knowledge

995:) and (2) the claim about the relation to truth (or the lack thereof) is not supported by the sources. 914:, and many other philosophies/ideologies/religions that have influence in modern culture and society. 3973:

If there is consensus for this change, I am willing to do the conversion of the existing references.

3501: 3259: 3186: 3029: 2940: 2817: 2760: 2685: 2604: 2490: 2398: 2324: 2239: 2152: 1984: 1980: 1925: 1739: 1648: 1555: 1459: 1417: 1395: 1358: 1333: 1310: 1289: 1178: 1013:

I removed "which are, unlike knowledge, associated more closely with deeper, spiritual truth", which

3693:, if I'm not mistaken. In other words, the display style is not compact enough. It seems to me that 3085:

goes into a lot of detail. It could probably be reduced to two paragraphs and/or used to expand the

2069:

The second paragraph uses "common sense" three times in two sentences. Try to avoid this repetition.

395:

Despite what that dictionary says, "Kabbalah" and "Qabalah" are not typically used interchangeably.

4815: 4741: 4727: 4723: 4323: 4229: 4192: 4024: 3974: 3619: 3554: 3458: 2879:. – Good, though the examples in this source are limited in scope (I briefly mentioned this above). 1581: 1529: 1019: 977: 945: 856: 2526:

that Wittgenstein has a theory of family resemblance. Does it actually tell us what the theory is?

2102:– Don't preview the statement by describing it as important, just present the statement factually. 1771:, but something as simple as "Knowledge" needs to be accessible to the layman as much as possible. 4838: 4795: 4771: 4712: 4675: 4658: 4615: 4589: 4495: 4451: 4423: 4394: 4228:

consistent about having most short citations terminated by a period but a few not so terminated.

4017: 3964: 3710: 3697: 3679: 3669: 3654: 3481: 3426: 3165: 2994: 2968: 2124: 1547: 1278: 1120: 1072: 967: 919: 825: 792: 604: 585: 550: 412: 201: 179: 3632:

I think you make a convincing point. I'll follow your advice and focus on the remaining issues.

2925:

also does not contain much information on it but this topic is probably better discussed there.

2305:

He does not argue that it's propositional, he just suggests that it can be understood this way:

2217:

The two disciplinary fields have come together in studies of knowledge deriving from practice...

2266:

Is there any reason why the inline citation for Wilson (2012) is in the middle of the sentence?

211: 4904: 4895: 4882:; Ayres, Paul L.; Kalyuga, Slava (2011). "Categories of knowledge: an evolutionary approach". 4856: 4641: 4482: 4349: 4263: 4247: 4224: 4214: 4041: 4007: 3994: 3637: 3596: 3528: 3402: 3249: 3240:

The dispute was about the paragraph on the Qabalah. It has been solved, see the discussion at

3212: 3175: 3109: 3018: 2982: 2930: 2909: 2807: 2750: 2675: 2630: 2555: 2538: 2480: 2388: 2314: 2228: 2180: 2141: 1967: 1728: 1617: 1599: 1537: 1504: 1489: 1444: 1406: 1384: 1341: 1038: 1004: 807: 639: 379: 322: 263: 247: 102: 4131: 4114: 4097: 3890: 3875: 3860: 3780: 3764: 3748: 580:"? And what is "the first sentence"? The first sentence of what? Sorry, I was just confused. 4887: 3675:

to separate multiple short citations in ref tags in this article. In the rendered HTML, the

3374: 3089:

article. The third paragraph as a whole might be a bit more detailed than the article needs.

2998: 2986: 2117: 1954:

would also be applicable here (which I'm surprised isn't mentioned anywhere in the article).

1913:. Unless there's additional context to combine these under a single idea, this reads like a 1577: 1551: 1092:

does not actually refute what it, at first glance, appears to refute. (Note that the author

1060: 882: 852: 848: 600: 3614:, D. Reidel, 1983; Chapter 12: "Intuitionism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and Rationalism", in 2397:

That source should work, especially since it adds a secondary source to support the claim.

4441: 4413: 2972: 1951: 1827:– This is a mouthful. Even with the footnote, it should probably be rewritten for clarity. 1093: 1713: 3685:

template puts each short citation in a separate list item with the following CSS style:

3497: 4581: 3516: 3241: 3123: 1455: 608: 47: 17: 2085:

It is different from other forms of epistemology because of its unique subject matter.

2077:

The formal epistemology section could probably be rewritten to be more understandable.

3477: 1525: 1116: 963: 958:

Thanks for adding that. I don't think the sources exactly say that it is necessarily

915: 844: 821: 788: 620:

for example whether wisdom and understanding stand in contrast with knowledge or not.

581: 546: 222: 197: 175: 80: 4304:

template. It required manually naming repeated references (handled automatically by

3703:

is much better suited to separating long full citations instead of short citations.

3028:

completely cover something at the correct scope. But so far it looks good, I think.

2717:

This source seems to be almost exclusively about Buddhist use. Does it support that

1719: 618:"We should also leave out controversial claims where the different sources disagree" 4879: 4852: 4637: 4478: 4345: 4308: 4298: 4283: 4274: 4259: 4243: 4210: 4206: 4051: 3990: 3954: 3944: 3662: 3633: 3592: 3550: 3540: 3524: 3423: 3365:

Schafer, Karl (September 2014). "Knowledge and Two Forms of Non-Accidental Truth".

3245: 3208: 3171: 3162: 3105: 3014: 2926: 2922: 2905: 2803: 2746: 2671: 2626: 2551: 2534: 2476: 2384: 2310: 2224: 2137: 1963: 1724: 1640: 1613: 1612:

I've tried to split some more paragraphs but, to my eyes, their length looks fine.

1595: 1533: 1500: 1485: 1440: 1402: 1380: 1354: 1337: 1034: 1014: 1000: 931: 874: 840: 803: 635: 375: 259: 218: 98: 1018:"contrasted with" is too strong, you could replace it with "differentiated from". 855:

article, then I wonder why it is important enough to be in this overview article!

89:

are found in the sources. They seem to be even contradicted by the Regardie 2000:

4294:. The latter is how I used to create shortened footnotes before I discovered the 3396: 1860:

that jump straight to that section without reading the Definitions section first.

254:, and that knowledge is the 11th sephira, sometimes also seen as a false sephira. 4891: 4851:

Thanks for the suggestion, I added a short explanation to the section "Others".

4518:

Article needs more interdisciplinary perspective (cut-and-paste from FAC review)

3607: 2572:

Klausen (2015) + Lackey (2021): Both sources support all parts of this sentence.

2220: 2093:– Avoid "points out". It implies that we're agreeing with whoever we're quoting. 1722: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4436:

The onus should be on the editor introducing old fashioned and tortured prose.

3507:

At some points, the article gives too much detail. For example, the subsection

3429: 3168: 4860: 4846: 4823: 4779: 4735: 4716: 4666: 4645: 4623: 4597: 4503: 4486: 4459: 4445: 4437: 4431: 4417: 4409: 4402: 4377: 4353: 4331: 4267: 4251: 4237: 4218: 4200: 4032: 3998: 3982: 3641: 3627: 3600: 3562: 3532: 3485: 3466: 3275: 3253: 3216: 3202: 3179: 3146: 3142: 3113: 3045: 3022: 2981:

appears to be a major field that isn't covered. Collective knowledge, such as

2956: 2934: 2833: 2811: 2776: 2754: 2701: 2679: 2634: 2620: 2559: 2542: 2506: 2484: 2414: 2392: 2340: 2318: 2255: 2232: 2206:

The term “situated knowledge” has two quite distinct disciplinary connections.

2168: 2145: 1996: 1971: 1941: 1910: 1807:

differences concerning the standards of knowledge that people intend to uphold

1755: 1732: 1664: 1621: 1603: 1589: 1571: 1541: 1508: 1493: 1475: 1448: 1433: 1410: 1388: 1374: 1345: 1326: 1303: 1194: 1124: 1042: 1027: 1008: 985: 971: 953: 923: 894:

I agree that most of the information should belong in other articles, such as

873:

As for your objection, the word "knowledge" doesn't appear in the article for

864: 829: 811: 796: 643: 589: 554: 383: 343: 267: 205: 183: 106: 4907: 3960:

is terminated by a period in the reference list, whereas references that use

3547:

information on other schools of epistemology, like rationalism and empiricism

676:

a type of Kabbalah; they are different, albeit related, things. This is why "

4811: 4696: 3508: 3454: 3067: 3002: 2049:– Begin by describing the basic premise without arguing that it's important. 1645:

Knowledge:Reward board#Improve Level 2 Vital Articles to Good Article status

1458:

might be helpful if we decide that we need more clarification in this area.

1083: 1050:

altruistic ends, so long will sorrow and suffering be the inevitable result.

685: 2856:

Weisberg (2021): Probably fine, but keep an eye out for close paraphrasing.

2364:

foundationalists, coherentists and infinitists all face the Gettier problem

1482:

Knowledge:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Modifying_and_making_up_examples

1281:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 3395:

Lycan, William G. (24 January 2019). "2. Moore against the New Skeptics".

2877:

like university departments or scientific journals in the academic context

1900:– Saying that something is "the prime example" comes across as subjective. 836: 681: 404: 251: 239: 235: 118: 3063:– This feels like it would be way too important to just be one sentence. 2579:

Pritchard (2013): Checked all four uses. Two are good, two have issues:

210:

Thank you for your explanation. In relation to Kabbalah vs Qabalah, see

4608:

sections could also jeopardize GA status, which I have no desire to do.

4223:

It doesn't matter which style other articles use. All that matters per

3378: 2294:

Where does Klein argue that knowledge by acquaintance is propositional?

907: 895: 878: 677: 408: 122: 2136:

I think the use of tertiary sources is not so much of a problem here.

4279:

I think that's a good idea, so I made the suggested replacement from

2904:

The study of knowledge could be covered more directly. I realize the

911: 596: 243: 226: 126: 114: 94: 3568: 1401:

roughly what you had in mind and if I missed some important points.

2870:

undergoes changes in relation to social and cultural circumstances

899: 4317:

Another issue that I noticed while doing the replacement is that

2439:

to provide reasons for thinking something or for doing something.

1869:

I have never seen John F. Kennedy referred to as "J. F. Kennedy".

4314:), but that was easy to do since only 9 refs needed to be named. 3420: 3159: 1716: 1532:

before since they were involved in the recent discussion on it.

630:. The "claims" are statements made in the text of this proposal. 2460:

Where does it support the common sense objection to skepticism?

2195:

It often, but not exclusively, concerns a relation to a person.

672:

Again, Kabbalah and Qabalah are not the same thing. Qabalah is

2429:

Conjunction, closure, and evidence transfer principles – Good.

1076:

That belief is held simultaneously as the belief, (quote from

25: 2047:

The value of knowledge is an important topic in epistemology.

2908:

article treads a lot of the same ground as this article, so

2015:

Sources of knowledge are "rational capacities for knowledge"

4611:

Thoughts, comments, suggestions (as always!) most welcome —

1701:

should be edited out unless they're part of a direct quote.

1063:(which is not one of the original three references I used) 242:

sees knowledge as an important element and refers to it as

3612:

Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World

628:

The ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah...

367:. The Theosophical Publishing Company of New York. p. 73. 4380:, would you mind elaborating your justification for this 3720:. So, for example, the first instance would change from 2719:

Lower knowledge is based on the senses and the intellect

2653:

It is usually held that only relatively sophisticated...

403:

does not. Note that Knowledge has separate articles for

4475:

the extent to which knowledge and power are intertwined

4381: 930:

the word "knowledge" doesn't appear in the article for

125:. (The word "Qabalah" does not appear even once in the 97:

are again very different from the ones mentioned here.

4118:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHeydornJesudason2013 (

3879:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHeydornJesudason2013 (

3768:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHeydornJesudason2013 (

1917:

concept of two types of knowledge with similar names.

1801:

the general characteristics of knowledge listed above

246:. It seeks to decipher hidden knowledge found in the 192:

Also, in regards to Daath being a false sephira, and

3472:

I moved the template down to the History section on

3242:

Talk:Knowledge#Paragraph_on_knowledge_in_the_Qabalah

2123:

As a suggestion, try to avoid leaning to heavily on

4175:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHetherington2022a (

4148:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHasanFumerton2020 (

3928:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHetherington2022a (

3905:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHasanFumerton2020 (

3821:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHetherington2022a (

3796:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHasanFumerton2020 (

2584:

they usually can be paraphrased using a that-clause

1831:

the JTB definition is a step in the right direction

4336:I think that's a good idea. Some references, like 1047:In "The Golden Dawn", speaking of Daath, it says, 886:proposal, I wasn't trying to imply that knowledge 292:"The American Heritage Dictionary entry: kabbalah" 117:seems to be primarily dealing with the concept in 4533:concerns of analytic epistemology. To elaborate: 4338:Allwood 2013, p. 69–72, Anthropology of Knowledge 2446:as in knowing how to prove a mathematical theorem 2434:Steup & Neta (2020): Checked six of 28 uses. 2032:The expression "structure of knowledge" refers to 1821:– Explain. Maybe this should be its own sentence? 4110: 4076:sfn error: no target: CITEREFHetherington2022a ( 3871: 3760: 2522:García-Arnaldos (2020): I see that this source 232: 3661:I hadn't noticed until now that in March 2023 4722:By the way, note that there is an article on 4342:Hill 2009, § Idiosyncratic Views of Knowledge 4170: 4144: 4071: 3923: 3901: 3816: 3792: 3718:Help:Shortened footnotes § Bundling citations 3453:navbox that is transcluded in the excerpt in 3294:sufficiently describe context and relevance. 8: 4135:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFoxall2017 ( 3894:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFoxall2017 ( 3784:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFoxall2017 ( 2939:Agreed, this is probably the best approach. 2357:cannot possess an infinite number of reasons 1898:The prime example of the relevant experience 816:Thank you. I will make the change right now. 4161:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDePoe2022 ( 4101:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPeels2023 ( 3916:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDePoe2022 ( 3864:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPeels2023 ( 3808:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDePoe2022 ( 3752:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPeels2023 ( 2865:Allwood (2013): Checked two of eight uses. 2053:On this view, it seems difficult to explain 1103:described. Referring to Binah and Chokmah: 4682:something from pragmatism and hermeneutics 3950:template, because each single instance of 2270: 1978: 1210: 121:, which is similar to, but distinct, from 4702:Regarding your wish to have a section on 4691:Note that there is already an article on 3153:of knowledge that's not widely accepted. 2967:This article doesn't distinguish between 2714:Thakchoe (2022): Checked all three uses. 1795:cognitive success or an epistemic contact 4790:Biologically primary/secondary knowledge 4704:knowledge of norms/ethics/morality/right 3970:are currently not similarly terminated. 3367:Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3097:might be appropriate, but I'm not sure.) 2596:This is supported by Hetherington 2022: 2191:such as Linda Zagzebski's cup of coffee. 1819:that the believed fact caused the belief 4871: 4064: 3849: 3734: 3357: 3302: 2291:Klein (1998): Checked four of 24 uses. 2273: 1875:– Is this "and" supposed to be an "or"? 1241: 1213: 680:" is not a section within the article " 283: 215:qabalah: a variant spelling of kabbalah 4799: 4707: 4703: 4681: 4474: 4470: 4467:the extent to which knowledge is power 4466: 4341: 4337: 4127: 3886: 3776: 3546: 3474:Knowledge representation and reasoning 3401:. Oxford University Press. pp. 21–36. 3060: 2876: 2869: 2742: 2733: 2732:One of the relevant passages here is: 2718: 2652: 2597: 2583: 2471: 2445: 2438: 2378: 2363: 2356: 2306: 2216: 2205: 2194: 2099: 2090: 2084: 2063: 2052: 2046: 2031: 2020: 2014: 1903: 1897: 1881: 1872: 1863: 1836: 1830: 1824: 1818: 1812: 1806: 1800: 1794: 1104: 1089: 1081: 1068: 1064: 1048: 992: 941: 929: 627: 623: 617: 214: 90: 85: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4157: 4093: 3912: 3856: 3804: 3744: 2362:Where does it support the claim that 1873:is either occurrent and dispositional 1115:as a reference to the paragraph now. 75:Paragraph on knowledge in the Qabalah 7: 3616:Finding Philosophy in Social Science 3569:Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction 2204:issues. According to Hunter (2009): 2112:Verifiable with no original research 1202:The following discussion is closed. 614:Explanation of my earlier comments: 4538:its own subsection as a definition. 4465:formulation and replace the phrase 3455:Knowledge § Artificial intelligence 2451:Direct and indirect realism – Good. 3443:Is there some way to suppress the 24: 399:belongs to Jewish mysticism, but 4523:I share this again here because 4074:, § 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance. 3706:I propose that instead of using 3545:You mentioned wanting to expand 3344:The discussion above is closed. 3284: 3227: 3131: 2891: 2741:. This source is more explicit: 2275: 2107: 1673: 1576:I would remove the paragraph on 363:Mathers, S.L. MacGregor (1912). 29: 4173:, § 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance 3926:, § 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance 3819:, § 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance 3066:Should there be information on 2582:Not convinced that it supports 1088:Thus, (Regardie 2000 pp. 33-4: 511:a false sephira within Qabalah. 3439:Artificial intelligence navbox 2064:This position is quite radical 417:This link may help as a start. 1: 3642:09:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 3628:19:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 3601:19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 3563:18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 3533:17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) 2021:This distinction is important 1693:Avoid first-person pronouns: 1456:original research noticeboard 1125:19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC) 1043:17:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC) 1028:14:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC) 1009:09:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) 986:23:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 972:22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 954:22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 924:21:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 865:19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 830:17:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 812:08:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC) 797:14:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC) 644:09:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC) 590:19:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 555:18:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 384:16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 268:16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 206:15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 184:15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 107:13:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 4354:17:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 4332:16:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 4292:{{harvnb ... }}</ref: --> 4268:10:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 4257:{{harvnb ... }}</ref: --> 4252:09:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 4238:19:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 4219:19:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 4201:18:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 4111:Heydorn & Jesudason 2013 4033:18:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 4013:. Thanks. The appearance of 3999:18:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3983:18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3872:Heydorn & Jesudason 2013 3761:Heydorn & Jesudason 2013 3509:Knowledge#Other distinctions 3285: 3228: 3132: 2892: 2651:The sentences starting with 2276: 2108: 2100:An important finding is that 1894:should always be italicized. 1674: 87:no true qualities of its own 4892:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4_1 4693:Self-knowledge (psychology) 3498:comprehensiveness criterion 2599:or she who is due to visit. 1113:Little Essays Towards Truth 1100:Little Essays Towards Truth 1078:Little Essays Towards Truth 1057:Little Essays Towards Truth 321:. Llewellyn. p. 33-34, 86. 4930: 4471:whether knowledge is power 2091:As Pope Francis points out 2059:Philosophical skepticism: 348:. Colin Low. p. 242, 252. 4861:07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 4847:19:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 4824:18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4780:19:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 4736:18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4667:17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4646:07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4628:The main danger I see is 4624:02:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4598:00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 4504:17:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4487:07:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4460:00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4446:00:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4432:00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 4418:23:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 4403:23:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 4145:Hasan & Fumerton 2020 3902:Hasan & Fumerton 2020 3793:Hasan & Fumerton 2020 3486:16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 3467:16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 3398:On Evidence in Philosophy 3276:18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 3254:17:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 3217:16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 3203:20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 3180:18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 3114:16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 3087:a priori and a posteriori 3046:20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 3023:18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2957:16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2935:08:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2862:Pope Francis quote: Good. 2834:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2812:14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2777:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2755:14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2702:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2680:14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2635:09:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2621:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2560:09:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2543:11:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2507:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2485:11:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2415:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2393:10:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2341:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2319:11:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2256:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2233:10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 2169:16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2146:08:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1997:18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1972:17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1942:15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) 1756:18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1733:09:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1665:16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 1622:18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1604:08:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 1590:02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 1572:18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1542:18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1509:12:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 1494:19:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1476:18:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1449:18:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1434:17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1411:16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1389:09:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1375:01:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1346:17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 1327:17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 1304:17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 1195:16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 503:Within Qabalah, daath is 317:Regardie, Israel (2000). 4686:Definitions of knowledge 4684:, consider adding it to 3346:Please do not modify it. 2997:could be expanded upon. 2073:In various disciplines: 2027:Structure of knowledge: 1204:Please do not modify it. 3448:Artificial intelligence 2859:Stevenson (2003): Good. 904:new religious movements 4391: 4023:was driving me crazy. 3492:Changes to the article 3095:Religious epistemology 2979:Sociology of knowledge 2670:I've reformulated it. 2457:Brain in a vat – Good. 2007:Sources of knowledge: 1833:– This feels idiomatic 976:Looks better. Thanks! 256: 4884:Cognitive load theory 4808:cognitive load theory 4569:an emerging consensus 4386: 3657:is not compact enough 3574:Sources of knowledge 3512:suggested additions. 2991:traditional knowledge 2896:Broad in its coverage 2802:See the quote above. 2657:WP:Close paraphrasing 2454:Introspection – Good. 2151:especially valuable. 1769:epistemic modal logic 365:The Kabbalah Unvieled 42:of past discussions. 4654:covers what it does. 3502:history of knowledge 2383:accidentally truth: 2184:better than nothing. 2042:Value of knowledge: 1837:they often fall prey 782:would be to include 296:www.ahdictionary.com 156:literally everything 4724:Epistemic cognition 4680:If you want to add 1797:could be clarified. 342:Low, Colin (1991). 238:tradition known as 234:The ancient Jewish 4812:Knowledge § Others 4713:Moral epistemology 4697:Knowledge § Others 4171:Hetherington 2022a 4072:Hetherington 2022a 3924:Hetherington 2022a 3817:Hetherington 2022a 3691:margin-bottom:.1em 3687:margin-bottom:.5em 3655:Template:Multiref2 3379:10.1111/phpr.12062 3074:Excessive detail: 2995:cultural knowledge 2969:explicit knowledge 2853:Kern (2017): Good. 2848:Third use is good. 2179:Same comment with 1548:Abrahamic religion 1279:Talk:Knowledge/GA1 1205: 1033:"differentiated". 4037:Although ideally 3846:which renders as 3731:which renders as 3407:978-0-19-256526-6 3274: 3201: 3044: 2983:general knowledge 2955: 2887: 2886: 2832: 2775: 2700: 2619: 2505: 2413: 2339: 2254: 2167: 1999: 1983:comment added by 1940: 1924:Addressed below. 1754: 1663: 1570: 1474: 1432: 1373: 1325: 1269: 1268: 1203: 1193: 345:Notes on Kabbalah 327:978-0-87542-663-1 248:Hebrew Scriptures 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4921: 4912: 4911: 4876: 4839:Patrick J. Welsh 4772:Patrick J. Welsh 4679: 4659:Patrick J. Welsh 4616:Patrick J. Welsh 4590:Patrick J. Welsh 4496:Patrick J. Welsh 4452:Patrick J. Welsh 4424:Patrick J. Welsh 4395:Patrick J. Welsh 4313: 4307: 4303: 4297: 4293: 4288: 4282: 4278: 4185: 4180: 4166: 4153: 4140: 4123: 4106: 4088: 4082: 4081: 4069: 4056: 4050: 4046: 4040: 4022: 4016: 4012: 4006: 4003:I can live with 3969: 3963: 3959: 3953: 3949: 3943: 3935: 3933: 3921: 3910: 3899: 3884: 3869: 3854: 3842: 3830: 3826: 3813: 3801: 3789: 3773: 3757: 3739: 3727: 3715: 3709: 3702: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3678: 3674: 3668: 3544: 3452: 3446: 3431: 3418: 3412: 3411: 3392: 3386: 3385: 3362: 3337: 3334: 3328: 3325: 3319: 3316: 3310: 3307: 3288: 3287: 3271: 3266: 3264: 3231: 3230: 3198: 3193: 3191: 3135: 3134: 3041: 3036: 3034: 2999:Domain knowledge 2987:common knowledge 2952: 2947: 2945: 2900:Broad coverage: 2895: 2894: 2829: 2824: 2822: 2772: 2767: 2765: 2697: 2692: 2690: 2616: 2611: 2609: 2502: 2497: 2495: 2410: 2405: 2403: 2377:from section 5: 2336: 2331: 2329: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2251: 2246: 2244: 2164: 2159: 2157: 2111: 2110: 1937: 1932: 1930: 1839:– Also idiomatic 1751: 1746: 1744: 1677: 1676: 1660: 1655: 1653: 1578:Hermetic Qabalah 1567: 1562: 1560: 1552:Dharmic religion 1524:. But I'll ping 1471: 1466: 1464: 1429: 1424: 1422: 1399: 1370: 1365: 1363: 1322: 1317: 1315: 1223:Copyvio detector 1211: 1190: 1185: 1183: 1061:Aleister Crowley 883:Hermetic Qabalah 853:Hermetic Qabalah 849:Hermetic Qabalah 839:.) I agree with 601:Hermetic Qabalah 369: 368: 360: 354: 353: 339: 333: 331: 314: 308: 307: 305: 303: 288: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4929: 4928: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4901: 4878: 4877: 4873: 4794:Something that 4792: 4761:this discussion 4673: 4520: 4374: 4311: 4305: 4301: 4295: 4290: 4286: 4280: 4272: 4184: 4174: 4160: 4147: 4134: 4117: 4100: 4089: 4085: 4075: 4070: 4066: 4054: 4048: 4044: 4038: 4020: 4014: 4010: 4004: 3967: 3961: 3957: 3951: 3947: 3941: 3938: 3927: 3915: 3904: 3893: 3878: 3863: 3855: 3851: 3839: 3833: 3829: 3820: 3807: 3795: 3783: 3767: 3751: 3740: 3736: 3724: 3713: 3707: 3700: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3676: 3672: 3666: 3659: 3538: 3494: 3450: 3444: 3441: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3419: 3415: 3408: 3394: 3393: 3389: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3350: 3349: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3322: 3317: 3313: 3308: 3304: 3269: 3262:Thebiguglyalien 3260: 3196: 3189:Thebiguglyalien 3187: 3070:? I don't know. 3039: 3032:Thebiguglyalien 3030: 2973:tacit knowledge 2950: 2943:Thebiguglyalien 2941: 2888: 2827: 2820:Thebiguglyalien 2818: 2770: 2763:Thebiguglyalien 2761: 2695: 2688:Thebiguglyalien 2686: 2614: 2607:Thebiguglyalien 2605: 2500: 2493:Thebiguglyalien 2491: 2408: 2401:Thebiguglyalien 2399: 2334: 2327:Thebiguglyalien 2325: 2281: 2249: 2242:Thebiguglyalien 2240: 2202:WP:FRANKENSTEIN 2162: 2155:Thebiguglyalien 2153: 1985:Thebiguglyalien 1952:theory of forms 1935: 1928:Thebiguglyalien 1926: 1915:WP:FRANKENSTEIN 1749: 1742:Thebiguglyalien 1740: 1658: 1651:Thebiguglyalien 1649: 1565: 1558:Thebiguglyalien 1556: 1469: 1462:Thebiguglyalien 1460: 1427: 1420:Thebiguglyalien 1418: 1396:Thebiguglyalien 1393: 1368: 1361:Thebiguglyalien 1359: 1334:Thebiguglyalien 1320: 1313:Thebiguglyalien 1311: 1290:Thebiguglyalien 1273:This review is 1265: 1237: 1208: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1188: 1181:Thebiguglyalien 1179: 1172: 1167: 1094:Israel Regardie 576:"the claims in 373: 372: 362: 361: 357: 341: 340: 336: 328: 319:The Golden Dawn 316: 315: 311: 301: 299: 298:. HarperCollins 290: 289: 285: 77: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4927: 4925: 4914: 4913: 4899: 4870: 4869: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4849: 4835: 4831: 4816:Biogeographist 4791: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4768: 4764: 4756: 4752: 4745: 4742:Biogeographist 4728:Biogeographist 4720: 4700: 4689: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4655: 4651: 4630:WP:UNDUEWEIGHT 4612: 4609: 4605: 4564: 4563: 4558: 4557: 4552: 4551: 4546: 4545: 4540: 4539: 4525:the FAC review 4519: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4492: 4434: 4373: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4324:Biogeographist 4320: 4315: 4254: 4230:Biogeographist 4193:Biogeographist 4187: 4186: 4183: 4182: 4168: 4155: 4142: 4125: 4108: 4090: 4083: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4058: 4035: 4025:Biogeographist 3975:Biogeographist 3937: 3936: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3832: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3814: 3802: 3790: 3774: 3758: 3741: 3733: 3729: 3728: 3665:started using 3658: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3620:Biogeographist 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3581: 3578: 3555:Biogeographist 3517:Meta-knowledge 3493: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3459:Biogeographist 3440: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3413: 3406: 3387: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3329: 3320: 3311: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3291: 3290: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3234: 3233: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3151:WP:MINORASPECT 3138: 3137: 3128: 3127: 3124:dream argument 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3099: 3098: 3090: 3072: 3071: 3064: 3058: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3007: 3006: 2976: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2915: 2914: 2898: 2897: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2873: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2528: 2527: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2442: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2360: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2283: 2282: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2209: 2208: 2198: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2130: 2129: 2121: 2114: 2113: 2104: 2103: 2097: 2094: 2088: 2082: 2078: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2057: 2056: 2050: 2040: 2039: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2012: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1956: 1955: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1919: 1918: 1907: 1901: 1895: 1885: 1879: 1876: 1870: 1867: 1861: 1857: 1841: 1840: 1834: 1828: 1822: 1816: 1810: 1804: 1798: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1781: 1773: 1772: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1691: 1687: 1680: 1679: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1582:Biogeographist 1574: 1530:Biogeographist 1522:WP:MINORASPECT 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1349: 1348: 1284: 1283: 1267: 1266: 1264: 1263: 1258: 1253: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1236: 1235: 1233:External links 1230: 1225: 1219: 1216: 1215: 1209: 1200: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1171: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1108: 1097: 1074: 1053: 1020:Biogeographist 996: 978:Biogeographist 946:Biogeographist 938: 892: 871: 857:Biogeographist 817: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 633: 632: 631: 621: 612: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 371: 370: 355: 334: 326: 309: 282: 281: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 270: 257: 230: 187: 186: 171: 170: 165: 164: 150: 149: 144: 143: 138: 137: 132: 131: 76: 73: 70: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 18:Talk:Knowledge 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4926: 4909: 4906: 4902: 4900:9781441981257 4897: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4880:Sweller, John 4875: 4872: 4868: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4804: 4802: 4797: 4796:PatrickJWelsh 4789: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4762: 4757: 4753: 4750: 4746: 4743: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4705: 4701: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4687: 4683: 4677: 4676:PatrickJWelsh 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4586: 4585: 4583: 4576: 4572: 4570: 4560: 4559: 4554: 4553: 4548: 4547: 4542: 4541: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4530: 4529: 4526: 4517: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4390: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4371: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4318: 4316: 4310: 4300: 4285: 4276: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4255: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4226: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4178: 4172: 4169: 4164: 4159: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4143: 4138: 4133: 4129: 4126: 4121: 4116: 4112: 4109: 4104: 4099: 4095: 4092: 4091: 4087: 4084: 4079: 4073: 4068: 4065: 4059: 4053: 4043: 4036: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4019: 4009: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3971: 3966: 3956: 3946: 3931: 3925: 3919: 3914: 3908: 3903: 3897: 3892: 3888: 3882: 3877: 3873: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3853: 3850: 3847: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3824: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3782: 3778: 3775: 3771: 3766: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3750: 3746: 3743: 3742: 3738: 3735: 3732: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3719: 3712: 3704: 3699: 3681: 3671: 3664: 3656: 3653: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3589: 3582: 3579: 3576: 3575: 3573: 3572: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3542: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3520: 3518: 3513: 3510: 3505: 3503: 3499: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3449: 3438: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3414: 3409: 3404: 3400: 3399: 3391: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3347: 3333: 3330: 3324: 3321: 3315: 3312: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3283: 3282: 3277: 3272: 3265: 3263: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3226: 3225: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3199: 3192: 3190: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3130: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3091: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3069: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3057:civilization. 3055: 3054: 3047: 3042: 3035: 3033: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2958: 2953: 2946: 2944: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2890: 2889: 2878: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2855: 2852: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2835: 2830: 2823: 2821: 2816:...and good. 2815: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2778: 2773: 2766: 2764: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2713: 2712: 2703: 2698: 2691: 2689: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2617: 2610: 2608: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2518: 2517: 2508: 2503: 2496: 2494: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2459: 2456: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2433: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2416: 2411: 2404: 2402: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2342: 2337: 2330: 2328: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2284: 2272: 2265: 2264: 2257: 2252: 2245: 2243: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2218: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2170: 2165: 2158: 2156: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2126: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2037: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1931: 1929: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790:Definitions: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1757: 1752: 1745: 1743: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1654: 1652: 1646: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1561: 1559: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1472: 1465: 1463: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1430: 1423: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1364: 1362: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1323: 1316: 1314: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1271: 1270: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1196: 1191: 1184: 1182: 1169: 1166: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109: 1107: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1085: 1079: 1075: 1073: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 997: 994: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 933: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 818: 815: 814: 813: 809: 805: 800: 799: 798: 794: 790: 785: 781: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 645: 641: 637: 634: 629: 625: 622: 619: 616: 615: 613: 610: 606: 602: 598: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 579: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 484: 479: 478:substantially 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 366: 359: 356: 352: 347: 346: 338: 335: 329: 324: 320: 313: 310: 297: 293: 287: 284: 280: 271: 269: 265: 261: 258: 255: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 231: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 188: 185: 181: 177: 173: 172: 167: 166: 162: 157: 152: 151: 146: 145: 140: 139: 134: 133: 128: 124: 120: 116: 111: 110: 109: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 82: 74: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4883: 4874: 4866: 4805: 4793: 4748: 4706:, you said: 4587: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4565: 4531: 4522: 4521: 4392: 4387: 4375: 4291:<ref: --> 4086: 4067: 4057:. Like this. 3972: 3939: 3852: 3845: 3840:<ref: --> 3834: 3737: 3730: 3725:<ref: --> 3705: 3660: 3615: 3611: 3551:Epistemology 3521: 3514: 3506: 3495: 3442: 3416: 3397: 3390: 3382: 3370: 3366: 3360: 3352: 3345: 3332: 3323: 3314: 3305: 3297: 3292: 3261: 3235: 3188: 3139: 3083:a posteriori 3082: 3078: 3073: 3031: 2942: 2923:epistemology 2906:epistemology 2899: 2819: 2762: 2687: 2606: 2576:improvement. 2523: 2492: 2400: 2326: 2308:knowledge... 2287:Spotchecks: 2286: 2241: 2154: 2072: 2058: 2041: 2035: 2026: 2006: 1979:— Preceding 1927: 1892:a posteriori 1891: 1887: 1853: 1849: 1842: 1789: 1774: 1741: 1698: 1694: 1681: 1678:Well-written 1650: 1557: 1461: 1419: 1360: 1312: 1307: 1296: 1286: 1285: 1272: 1261:Instructions 1201: 1180: 1164: 1112: 1099: 1077: 1056: 959: 932:Christianity 887: 875:Christianity 783: 779: 673: 577: 508: 504: 482: 477: 420: 400: 396: 374: 364: 358: 349: 344: 337: 318: 312: 300:. Retrieved 295: 286: 278: 233: 193: 160: 155: 78: 65: 43: 37: 4715:section of 4128:Foxall 2017 3887:Foxall 2017 3777:Foxall 2017 3608:Mario Bunge 3580:Rationalism 3478:- car chasm 3289:Illustrated 2448:... – Good. 2125:WP:TERTIARY 1275:transcluded 960:undesirable 605:WP:TEXTWALL 483:information 302:14 February 36:This is an 4867:References 4717:Metaethics 4225:WP:CITEVAR 4158:DePoe 2022 4094:Peels 2023 3913:DePoe 2022 3857:Peels 2023 3805:DePoe 2022 3745:Peels 2023 3583:Skepticism 3577:Empiricism 3373:(2): 375. 3353:References 3298:References 3147:Relativism 3143:Pragmatism 2910:WP:SUMMARY 2655:read like 2280:Spotchecks 2181:WP:PRIMARY 1911:relativism 1228:Authorship 1214:GA toolbox 1165:References 780:preference 279:References 161:explicitly 142:directly." 4908:704381873 4018:multiref2 3965:multiref2 3711:multiref2 3698:multiref2 3680:multiref2 3670:multiref2 3068:ignorance 3003:Education 2118:WP:EARWIG 1850:connaître 1809:– clarify 1682:General: 1287:Reviewer: 1251:Templates 1242:Reviewing 1170:GA Review 1084:Choronzon 784:something 686:knowledge 421:sometimes 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4837:Cheers, 4770:Cheers, 4657:Cheers, 4614:Cheers, 4588:Cheers, 4528:article. 4494:Cheers, 4393:Thanks! 4372:Foucault 4042:multiref 4008:multiref 3141:such as 3079:A priori 2872:. – Good 2759:Good... 2524:mentions 2128:sources. 1993:contribs 1981:unsigned 1888:A priori 1526:Vontheri 1300:contribs 1256:Criteria 1177:Passed. 1117:Vontheri 964:Vontheri 916:Vontheri 845:Vontheri 837:MOS:HEAD 822:Vontheri 789:Vontheri 682:Kabbalah 582:Vontheri 547:Vontheri 405:Kabbalah 397:Kabbalah 252:sephirot 240:Kabbalah 236:mystical 198:Vontheri 176:Vontheri 119:Kabbalah 81:Vontheri 4853:Phlsph7 4834:Others. 4830:depend. 4767:emerge. 4709:excuse. 4638:Phlsph7 4582:WP:BOLD 4479:Phlsph7 4346:Phlsph7 4275:Phlsph7 4260:Phlsph7 4244:Phlsph7 4211:Phlsph7 3991:Phlsph7 3663:Phlsph7 3634:Phlsph7 3593:Phlsph7 3541:Phlsph7 3525:Phlsph7 3258:Noted. 3246:Phlsph7 3209:Phlsph7 3172:Phlsph7 3136:Neutral 3106:Phlsph7 3015:Phlsph7 2927:Phlsph7 2913:future. 2804:Phlsph7 2747:Phlsph7 2672:Phlsph7 2627:Phlsph7 2552:Phlsph7 2535:Phlsph7 2477:Phlsph7 2441:– Good. 2385:Phlsph7 2359:– Good. 2311:Phlsph7 2225:Phlsph7 2138:Phlsph7 1964:Phlsph7 1725:Phlsph7 1641:Phlsph7 1614:Phlsph7 1596:Phlsph7 1534:Phlsph7 1501:Phlsph7 1486:Phlsph7 1441:Phlsph7 1403:Phlsph7 1381:Phlsph7 1355:Phlsph7 1338:Phlsph7 1035:Phlsph7 1015:Phlsph7 1001:Phlsph7 908:new age 896:Qabalah 879:Qabalah 841:Phlsph7 804:Phlsph7 678:Qabalah 636:Phlsph7 609:WP:TLDR 545:Thanks. 409:Qabalah 401:Qabalah 376:Phlsph7 260:Phlsph7 169:truth." 123:Qabalah 99:Phlsph7 39:archive 3428:, and 3232:Stable 3207:Done. 3167:, and 2993:, and 2684:Good. 2625:Done. 2323:Good. 1854:savoir 1843:Types 1775:Lead: 1721:, and 1332:Hello 1070:Abyss. 912:occult 505:always 413:cabala 223:WP:SYN 79:Hello 4469:with 4438:Ceoil 4410:Ceoil 4378:Ceoil 4130:, p. 4113:, p. 4096:, p. 3889:, p. 3874:, p. 3859:, p. 3779:, p. 3763:, p. 3747:, p. 2473:head. 2380:true. 1277:from 937:that? 900:Daath 888:isn't 597:Da'at 244:Daath 227:Da'at 219:WP:OR 127:Da'at 115:Da'at 95:Da'at 16:< 4905:OCLC 4896:ISBN 4857:talk 4843:talk 4820:talk 4801:this 4776:talk 4740:Hi @ 4732:talk 4663:talk 4642:talk 4634:here 4620:talk 4594:talk 4500:talk 4483:talk 4456:talk 4442:talk 4428:talk 4414:talk 4399:talk 4376:Hi @ 4350:talk 4328:talk 4319:many 4264:talk 4248:talk 4234:talk 4215:talk 4197:talk 4177:help 4163:help 4150:help 4137:help 4120:help 4103:help 4078:help 4029:talk 3995:talk 3979:talk 3930:help 3918:help 3907:help 3896:help 3881:help 3866:help 3823:help 3810:help 3798:help 3786:help 3770:help 3754:help 3638:talk 3624:talk 3597:talk 3559:talk 3529:talk 3482:talk 3463:talk 3403:ISBN 3270:talk 3250:talk 3213:talk 3197:talk 3176:talk 3145:and 3110:talk 3081:and 3040:talk 3019:talk 2971:and 2951:talk 2931:talk 2828:talk 2808:talk 2771:talk 2751:talk 2696:talk 2676:talk 2631:talk 2615:talk 2556:talk 2539:talk 2501:talk 2481:talk 2409:talk 2389:talk 2335:talk 2315:talk 2250:talk 2229:talk 2163:talk 2142:talk 2081:it". 1989:talk 1968:talk 1936:talk 1890:and 1852:and 1750:talk 1729:talk 1697:and 1659:talk 1618:talk 1600:talk 1586:talk 1566:talk 1550:and 1538:talk 1528:and 1505:talk 1490:talk 1470:talk 1445:talk 1428:talk 1407:talk 1385:talk 1369:talk 1342:talk 1321:talk 1294:talk 1189:talk 1121:talk 1067:and 1039:talk 1024:talk 1005:talk 982:talk 968:talk 950:talk 940:Re: 928:Re: 920:talk 898:and 861:talk 826:talk 808:talk 793:talk 640:talk 607:and 599:and 586:talk 551:talk 407:and 380:talk 323:ISBN 304:2023 264:talk 202:talk 180:talk 103:talk 4888:doi 4806:In 4759:at 4473:or 4309:sfn 4299:sfn 4289:to 4284:sfn 4258:". 4052:sfn 3955:sfn 3945:sfn 3835:to 3375:doi 2875:... 2868:... 2444:... 2437:... 2355:... 1059:by 870:me. 674:not 509:not 221:or 194:not 4903:. 4894:. 4859:) 4845:) 4822:) 4814:. 4803:. 4778:) 4734:) 4665:) 4644:) 4622:) 4596:) 4502:) 4485:) 4458:) 4444:) 4430:) 4416:) 4401:) 4352:) 4344:. 4330:) 4312:}} 4306:{{ 4302:}} 4296:{{ 4287:}} 4281:{{ 4266:) 4250:) 4236:) 4217:) 4207:FA 4199:) 4132:75 4115:10 4098:28 4055:}} 4049:{{ 4045:}} 4039:{{ 4031:) 4021:}} 4015:{{ 4011:}} 4005:{{ 3997:) 3981:) 3968:}} 3962:{{ 3958:}} 3952:{{ 3948:}} 3942:{{ 3922:; 3911:; 3900:; 3891:75 3885:; 3876:10 3870:; 3861:28 3781:75 3765:10 3749:28 3714:}} 3708:{{ 3701:}} 3695:{{ 3683:}} 3677:{{ 3673:}} 3667:{{ 3640:) 3626:) 3599:) 3561:) 3531:) 3484:) 3465:) 3451:}} 3445:{{ 3425:, 3422:, 3381:. 3371:89 3369:. 3252:) 3244:. 3215:) 3178:) 3164:, 3161:, 3112:) 3021:) 2989:, 2985:, 2933:) 2810:) 2753:) 2745:. 2678:) 2633:) 2558:) 2541:) 2483:) 2391:) 2317:) 2231:) 2144:) 2036:is 1995:) 1991:• 1970:) 1731:) 1718:, 1715:, 1699:us 1695:we 1620:) 1602:) 1588:) 1540:) 1507:) 1492:) 1484:. 1447:) 1409:) 1387:) 1344:) 1302:) 1123:) 1080:) 1041:) 1026:) 1007:) 984:) 970:) 952:) 922:) 910:, 906:, 863:) 828:) 810:) 795:) 642:) 588:) 578:it 553:) 382:) 294:. 266:) 213:: 204:) 182:) 105:) 4910:. 4890:: 4855:( 4841:( 4818:( 4774:( 4744:, 4730:( 4678:: 4674:@ 4661:( 4640:( 4618:( 4592:( 4584:! 4498:( 4481:( 4454:( 4440:( 4426:( 4412:( 4397:( 4348:( 4326:( 4277:: 4273:@ 4262:( 4246:( 4232:( 4213:( 4195:( 4181:. 4179:) 4167:; 4165:) 4154:; 4152:) 4141:; 4139:) 4124:; 4122:) 4107:; 4105:) 4080:) 4027:( 3993:( 3977:( 3934:. 3932:) 3920:) 3909:) 3898:) 3883:) 3868:) 3825:) 3812:) 3800:) 3788:) 3772:) 3756:) 3636:( 3622:( 3595:( 3557:( 3543:: 3539:@ 3527:( 3480:( 3461:( 3410:. 3377:: 3273:) 3267:( 3248:( 3211:( 3200:) 3194:( 3174:( 3108:( 3093:( 3043:) 3037:( 3017:( 2954:) 2948:( 2929:( 2831:) 2825:( 2806:( 2774:) 2768:( 2749:( 2721:? 2699:) 2693:( 2674:( 2659:. 2629:( 2618:) 2612:( 2554:( 2537:( 2504:) 2498:( 2479:( 2412:) 2406:( 2387:( 2366:? 2338:) 2332:( 2313:( 2253:) 2247:( 2227:( 2166:) 2160:( 2140:( 2038:. 1987:( 1966:( 1939:) 1933:( 1753:) 1747:( 1727:( 1662:) 1656:( 1616:( 1598:( 1584:( 1569:) 1563:( 1536:( 1503:( 1488:( 1473:) 1467:( 1443:( 1431:) 1425:( 1405:( 1398:: 1394:@ 1383:( 1372:) 1366:( 1340:( 1324:) 1318:( 1297:· 1292:( 1192:) 1186:( 1119:( 1086:. 1037:( 1022:( 1003:( 980:( 966:( 948:( 918:( 859:( 824:( 806:( 791:( 638:( 611:. 584:( 549:( 378:( 332:, 330:. 306:. 262:( 229:. 200:( 178:( 101:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Talk:/Archive 2 - Knowledge

Index