So, basically, long story short, a big bunch of no-nothings can create knowledge by writing a Wikipedia page, yes? — Bartricks
Ah, I think you've been drinking. Wikipedia is written by people who like pub quizzes, not experts. For instance, consider something you know a lot about. Look up a wikipedia entry on that subject, whatever it may be. Then notice all the mistakes. — Bartricks
Beliefs that are not expressed in language or not possible to express in language are ineffable. They are not part of knowledge. You must be able to express the belief, or else it is not knowledge. Hence, legitimate knowledge can always be represented by using language expressions. — alcontali
Tacit (implicit empirical) knowledge is difficult to communicate because it is only partially codifiable, or uncodifiable. It is processed in an automatic, or intuitive (as opposed to a controlled, or cogitative), manner. Types include motor sequences (e.g., driving a car), skills (e.g., hammering a nail), and schemata (e.g., primary social interactions).
So tacit knowledge (which is ineffable) is not actually knowledge, or better: is illegitimate knowledge? — Galuchat
Well, it is obviously legitimate. I should have said that they are not part of "formal knowledge". — alcontali
Like ↪Bitter Crank, ↪StreetlightX and ↪unenlightened said, there are good and bad sides to Wikipedia and open-access publishing, as well as academic publishing and institutional science. Neither condemning them in toto nor unconditionally endorsing anything "open-source" like a bright-eyed fanatic is reasonable. You need to get informed and use good judgement. — SophistiCat
This seems like a reasonable thing to say, moderation in all things, but I think is insufficient to properly address alcontali's concerns. — boethius
Is fanaticism for justice a moral blemish? Is thirst for the truth savagery? — boethius
Why do experts tolerate and provide non-evidence, non-good-reasoning based arguments for occult research, research that is not accessible and occulted by pay-walls, is I believe for exactly the reasons alconti is proposing: anyone can check. If data is analysed to come to a conclusion, it really is as alconti says: anyone with a computer can check if that analysis was done correctly. — boethius
Fanaticism for truth and justice sounds very fine and romantic. Who could object to that? The naked truth used to be allegorically depicted as a beautiful and (obviously) naked young woman, apparently in order to ensure that the visceral (or whatever) truth of the allegory would be felt by every (or at least every male) viewer: — SophistiCat
Passion is a double-edged sword (there is that dull moderation and evenhandedness again...) — SophistiCat
What a "fanaticism for justice" and "thirst for truth" often stand for is a passion for simplistic but attractive narratives — SophistiCat
Me, I would prefer mealymouthed on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand, or barring that, admit ignorance and impotence, than be taken for a ride by phantoms. — SophistiCat
But hey, if conspirology and populism feel right to you, then sky is the limit - or at least the so-called "most powerful office in the world," as has now been demonstrated. — SophistiCat
The thing is, those who have the qualifications and the interest to check published research, for the most part can already do this, through their affiliation with institutions that provide subscriptions and library services. — SophistiCat
What makes modern science an "occult" institution is not so much physical access to scientific publications as the often high bar of competence and professionalism that is required to be even a good critic, let alone a good practitioner. Lacking that competence and professionalism, we get these "citizen scientists" posting detrended temperature graphs to prove that global warming is a hoax. (That's not an argument for hiding science from the unwashed masses behind paywalls, by the way.) — SophistiCat
I am well aware that there exist legitimate criticisms of scientific institutions and of the publishing industry, but, for better or for worse, those criticisms usually aren't easily packageable into slogans and don't invite easy solutions. — SophistiCat
Ok, you don't actually have an argument against my point. I meant occult to mean simply "hidden from view behind a paywall". — boethius
And this is leaving aside the absolutely bonkers conspiracy theory that you have going about scientists hiding their research behind paywalls so that outsiders, untainted by special interests, would not be able to check their work. — SophistiCat
Something doesn't add up — Agent Smith
All of us who use Wikipedia should contribute some $ now and then. It will continue to exist but may have to start accepting ads. — jgill
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.