Don't - don't, don't, don't - go to Wikipedia for insight. Wikipedia is not an academically respectable source, as your institution should itself have told you. It is shot through with mistakes. Nothing on there is subject to proper peer review. If you are at a university then read from proper peer-reviewed sources - that is, academic articles and books by respectable academic presses (not books by philosopher-wannabes with no academic credentials in the area). — Bartricks
I cite you, you cite my friend, and my friend cites me. It is absolutely trivial to game that system. — alcontali
Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and no respectable university will be happy with anyone citing wikipedia in student essays. Wikipedia has its uses, of course - but so do chats down the pub. — Bartricks
I think your beef is with the publishers who make lots of money off peer review publications. And, perhaps, with the disney disciplines who publish each other's work without subjecting it to proper peer review. — Bartricks
h, I think you've been drinking. Wikipedia is written by people who like pub quizzes, not experts. — Bartricks
No, there are experts. If your doctor - an expert on the human body and what can go wrong with it - says that the mole on your arm looks dodgy and you should get it checked out, then you're a fool if you think his/her judgement provides you with no better justification for believing it to be dodgy than your mechanic friend's judgement — Bartricks
Needless to say, when experts start talking outside their areas of expertise - so, when a neuroscientist starts talking about free will or a biologist starts talking about metaphysics - then you are no more justified in believing what they say than your baker's opinion on these matters. But if you want to know how to bake a loaf of bread, then listen to a baker. If you want to know about what's up with that weird looking mole on your arm, see a medical doctor. If you want to know if you've got free will, consult a philosopher. — Bartricks
Like I say, if your doctor says the mole is cancerous you are justified in believing it to be cancerous, whereas if your mate Tom says it is cancerous, you are not justified in believing it to be cancerous (even if it is). — Bartricks
I don't really know what you're talking about now. To know something is to have a true belief about it, whatever else it involves. And computers cannot have beliefs. — Bartricks
So I don't see what problem you're highlighting or why you think expert testimony counts for no more or less than the testimony of an idiot. — Bartricks
I have an anecdote about that. I once discovered a citation circle. Several publications referenced each other for support, but none actually contained the original argument nor a citation of an original source. — Echarmion
Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and no respectable university will be happy with anyone citing wikipedia in student essays.
Wikipedia has its uses, of course - but so do chats down the pub. — Bartricks
How does that work? An earlier publication referencing a later publication? — Michael
From what I gather access to knowledge is restricted and requires a certain combination of dollar digits to unlock. I have nothing against that. People must protect their intellectual property and need money to put food on the table. — TheMadFool
Even if wikipedia fails and is inaccurate — TheMadFool
Like I say, a machine cannot know something because a machine does not have mental states and beliefs are mental states and knowledge essentially involves having them. — Bartricks
Knowledge requires a belief, machines do not have beliefs, therefore machines do not have knowledge. — Bartricks
So if you're looking up something in philosophy, which is better - Wikipedia or Stanford Encyclopedia? It is Stanford hands-down. Why? It is written by academics - experts in their field. — Bartricks
You're changing your position. Knowledge involves having a justified true belief, whatever else it involves (actually, I'm sceptical it has to involve that - but it has to involve a true belief). Beliefs are mental states. Machines don't have mental states. Therefore they do not have knowledge. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.