Talk:Naturalized epistemology

Course Assignment
A group, which includes myself and several of my classmates, has recently expanded this article as part of an academic course assignment. We were hoping that the quality of work was sufficient enough to warrant reclassification above the stub class. Unfortunately, none of us are terribly familiar with wikipedia's article assessment policies and aren't sure exactly how to initiate the article reassessment process (if there is one), but we're hoping that if there is, this talk entry will suffice. --Adam.gschwender (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Shanata (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies and thank you
Belated apologies to the group that worked on this article. This is an exceedingly helpful contribution to Wikipedia, which has not been suitably acknowledged. Good work is its own reward, of course, but on behalf of other readers, thank you.

This article is suitable to refer to the Good Article peer review process. That process will ask for diagrams or other suitable illustrations. Perhaps they are unnecessary in this case, but it is worth discussion by Wikipedians and was probably beyond the scope of the academic project.

I shan't refer the article to the GA process, because I'm not free to work on it to see that through. However, I'd most certainly participate supportively should anyone care to take responsibility for taking the article through the steps.

I'll close by noting again that a year is too long for feedback to have been given here. A post at the WikiProject Philosophy main page was probably what was needed at the time. Better late than never, though. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Natural Facts?
There exist significant explanation and criticism in the article which rely on the definition of "natural facts".

What are these? Can someone provide criteria and the strongest known examples illustrating them, plus any criticism?