Talk:Epistemic commitment

The whale example seems particularly poorly chosen since (as the article on Whale states): The term whale sometimes refers to all cetaceans, but more often it excludes dolphins and porpoises,[2] which belong to the suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales). And thus it would be quite natural to use the phrase "true whale" to clarify that other cetaceans were not included. The articles on Beluga whale uses the phrase in exactly that way, and an analogous pattern can be seen in articles on monkeys, cats, etc.

A better example would rely on a distinction that was introduced specifically for the argument, rather than being a clarification of preexisting terminology. But it's late and I'm not thinking of one. :(

--MarkusQ (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Recommend for deletion
I recommend that this article be considered for deletion. It is poorly written and no citations whatever. There's no indication from this article that "epistemic commitment" is even a circulating phrase or expression.

I would hope that effort be put into repairing and enriching this article, since its subject matter is interesting. However, as it stands this article deserves to be deleted.

2602:306:BC58:5910:B065:24EF:B3FD:789B (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I find that this article provides useful information. As much as it can be improved, what we have is still better than nothing. Martinkunev (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"only"
I'm confused as to why the introductory sentence contains the word only: Epistemic commitment is an obligation, which may be withdrawn only under appropriate circumstances... I didn't really get what the article is about until I read the example. Wouldn't it be better if we remove the word only? -- Martinkunev (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)