This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I proposed that statement to Google AI:
The current epistemological analysis of knowledge is more a "ism", a particular metaphysical view. If we consider the different views on knowledge over history, then the study of knowledge, which was not called epistemology at these times, is not distinguishable from philosophy and includes metaphysics, ethics and logic. Therefore, in no way "Epistemology" is a branch of "philosophy", even though epistemologists present it that way. It is at best, today, a metaphysical view, not a branch. A branch can be determined by an object of study, a particular question, not by a particular view adopted.
Here is the reply from Google AI:
The claim that "epistemology" is a metaphysical "ism" rather than a branch of philosophy is a specific philosophical argument, not a widely accepted view. Traditionally, epistemology is defined as the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, examining the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. The argument posits that current epistemological theories have become so tied to specific metaphysical viewpoints (like rationalism or empiricism) that they can no longer be seen as a neutral, objective study of knowledge itself. Instead, the argument suggests, one's "epistemology" today is essentially a pre-determined metaphysical stance, which then informs one's view of knowledge. Therefore, it is not an objective, neutral branch of philosophy that asks a universal "what is knowledge?" question, but rather a specific "what is knowledge according to this particular metaphysical view?" question.
I claim that Google AI is biased by the English sources it uses, because it is rather the opposite if you consider different cultures. Today's epistemology and its corresponding analysis of knowledge is actually little known in other cultures and perhaps not even in other areas within the anglo-saxon culture. It is also biased by the algorithm it uses, which most likely is based on the search term "epistemology" and thus has the biased view point associated with the introduction of that term. The field is big enough that most likely we can find sources that claim its application in science, etc., but the real test is to look at sources centered on sciences without looking for "epistemology", only to philosophical issues in general, and see what they use when they have philosophical issues to address. Then we will see how much this "part" of philosophy is used in science.Dominic Mayers (talk)16:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it is related to content at the general level where we are here. This is not the talk page of an article, but the talk page for the orientation of the field in general. I refer to the biases of AI, but actually, if you look at them, it is obvious that they do not apply only to AI.Dominic Mayers (talk)16:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the talk page for WikiProject Philosophy. It is not a talk page for discussing the orientation of the fields of philosophy or epistomology in the abstract. What specific changes regarding Wikipedia content are you proposing? I'm quite sure that most experienced Wikipedia contributors will be aware of the many discussions around the biases inherent in the way sources are selected, not just for philosophy, but for content in general. Merely stating that a (well-known and documented) problem exists isn't particularly useful, and even more so when framed in the context of Google's LLM: next-word-guessing technology inherently incapable of offering any useful insight, rather than paraphrasing the commonplace, or when unable to do that, hallucinating nonsense. I see no reason whatsoever why we should see such untrustworthy banalities as even remotely relevant to a serious discussion.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there was no need to use Google's AI to illustrate this point. If you are right that the problem of cultural bias and bias related to domain-specific search terms is well understood, then my comment adds nothing new. Feel free to delete all of this, as I am not interested in the controversy. But before you do that, take note that I disagree that this talk page should discuss specific changes, because specific changes can only be decided on a case by case basis in the talk pages of articles. Here, except in reference to specific articles, only general principles can be discussed. If you claim that this page can only be used to discuss issues with specific articles, that would be a view point.Dominic Mayers (talk)16:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a bias in the way epistemology is treated, a discussion about it is certainly relevant, not a forum topic, and action should be taken. Using AI to illustrate this bias is actually a good idea, because the mechanisms of this bias are the same. I understand that if an understanding of the sources differs so much from what is expressed in the articles that it becomes difficult to discuss it in terms of one-off sentences, then it looks like a forum-style discussion of general points. Therefore, I don't mind the argument being hidden. I sincerely, but naively, believed that my efforts to contribute to improving the content would have been better appreciated.Dominic Mayers (talk)23:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'opinions' of next-word-guessing algorithms are of no relevance to any sensible discussion of bias within Wikipedia, for the reasons discussed in this thread.[1] In brief, LLM's are neither capable of checking content against sources, nor of assessing 'bias' in relation to Wikipedia policy on the subject. Anything they come up with will be nothing more than vague platitudes about some imaginary abstract notion of 'bias' which has no useful bearing on how Wikipedia approaches the topic.
The Wikipedia community as a whole justly views LLM output with scepticism, and has, in multiple discussions, made it abundantly clear that such output is of no utility on talk pages (see e.g[2]).AndyTheGrump (talk)23:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of this. Artificial intelligence (AI) was only used to illustrate biases, and only the first sentence of the AI response was used. The first sentence is: “The claim that ‘epistemology’ is a metaphysical ‘ism’ rather than a branch of philosophy rests on a specific philosophical argument, ‘a view that is not widely accepted.’” I should have deleted the rest of the AI response and emphasized more that this was simply a way of expressing that I am not impressed by the claim that the view presented is “not widely accepted,” because it can be explained by biases, the same ones we might expect with AI. Furthermore, perhaps I should have elaborated more on the fact that “epistemology,” with its analysis of knowledge as a form of belief, is actually more of a view, an “ism,” than a branch of philosophy, which is the key point.Dominic Mayers (talk)04:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of falling into forum discussions, Wikipedia is really interesting in that it is being spoon fed into LLMs (likely, this talk page included). On a side note, Wikipedia is cool because it has the previous versions maintained for most of the site. This means in the future, we (humans) can use the writing from before AI to avoid inbreeding a bit. With all this in mind, the need for accurate information that minimizes bias to avoid biasing the outputs future physicians, lawyers, and scientists will inevitably be using. With this in mind, perhaps OP is trying to find ways to minimize this bias? If we could use AI as an instrument to detect bias within our articles, we might be able to improve the product.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)04:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been finishing up dealing with a number of almost entirely LLM-generated articles from a now-blocked user. Many of these were very marginal concepts and I'vejust redirected them back to more relevant items (egrefined utilitarianism toutilitarianism) - many were originally redirects to begin with.
There are a couple I'm not sure what to do with, & I'd appreciate some advice on the best way forward for these, as I am not a specialist in the area -
Satisfaction paradox,Hedonic asymmetry - my feeling is that these can be redirected but not sure where best to redirect these to; all inbound links seem to be tacked into "see also" sections
End-of-life ethics - this is undeniably a significant and notable topic, but I don't think a waffly LLM-generated article helps anyone (see alsoreproductive ethics by the same user, now deleted)
Hedonology - this was completely rewritten by LLM but the before and after versions bear little relationship to one another (Before, pricing model for damages, possibly the same thing ashedonic damages; after, Benthamite utilitarianism)
Embodied cognition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Said has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)15:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any interest to create an article about Paul Seligman?
I am struggling to find sources when it comes to biographies, and there definitely are enough for his works The Apeiron of Anaximander and Being and Not-Being: An introduction to Plato's Sophist.
I was reading a bit of the articles on Moral Nihilism, metaethics, and non-cognitivism. One question I have is whether or not it would be smart to group Non-cognitivism with Moral Nihilism, as kind an alternative to error theory. Further, I think that the article on Non-Cognitivism should have the frege-geech reference in it, since the problem it poses may be broader than to justExpressivism, and can apply to other versions of Non-cognitivism. InMoral Nihilism there is reference to the "so-what" problem posed to theories like moral error theory, but I think it could be developed, posing thenow-what problem, thecriticisms of the problem, as well as the potential solutions/reactions to it, such as moral conservationism, moral abolitionism, moral substitutionism, and fictionalism (note moral fictionalism has a reference at the end of the article on the broaderfictionalism (maybe its reference there could be expanded as well). Also note that the frege-geach problem is referenced by articles on bothQuasi-Realism andExpressivism. Searches for the Frege-Geach problem refer to both, but clicking on the it from either Frege's page or Geach's page each link to its reference in Expressivism.ErrorTheory (talk)03:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest beingWP:BOLD and making any changes you think make sense, disagreements can be discussed as they arise on the talk page. I wasn't sure what changes you were suggesting with your first point, sorry, although any changes should be guided by how high-quality reliable sources treat the relationship between moral nihilism and noncognitivism. I agree Frege-Geach is relevant tononcognitivism broadly so worth including in that article (note that it is already being discussed under the name "embedding problem", plenty of room for expansion though).
One consideration on the suggested changes to moral nihilism: make sure that the page does not become overly-detailed, it should always be first and foremost an article summarising moral nihilism at a high level, as accessible and concise as possible. If there is lots of info on all these topics, new pages can always be created focusing specifically on them. Broader overviews (like textbooks, specialist encyclopedia articles) are always a good guide for how much space to give to different topics.
A well written article. Goes fast in a good way. I noticed you cite Wolterstorff but do not mention his own contribution to aesthetics (particularly in music) in the article. The same could be said of Noel Carroll. Also, nothing on theparadox of fiction?Cake (talk)17:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted on the talk page, the article was a mess. It is a work in progress, but I think I put some amount of work into it, such that now I hope a decent article is taking shape. I am not an expert in anything and so hardly an expert at everything. Any help is appreciated.Cake (talk)04:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
