What is the consensus on merging or symlinking and ? Are there any reasons why we should need both tags?

Although I was in favour of retaining at first (probably because of academic jargon), it may be more useful to retain , as it is definitely a more user-friendly option.

  • 4
    If we were to consider this, I'd be in favor of using epistemology as the master, as it is the broader, more encompassing term. User-friendliness is less important than accuracy, and using the academic term will help people learn it. :)
    – stoicfury
    Mar 18, 2012 at 23:31
  • 5
    User-friendliness is not a concern here if we create a synonym. Any time someone tries to use the tag [knowledge], it will automatically map to the master tag, [epistemology]. (cc @stoicfury)
    – Cody Gray
    Mar 19, 2012 at 1:37
  • How would you tag the question Are all facts worth knowing? I don't think it's an epistemology question. (Some of the other knowledge questions don't easily fit under epistemology, though many do, in my opinion.) Mar 21, 2012 at 21:50
  • @Jon Good point. There are mainly two cat of tags in use on Phil.SE: (sub)disciplines and topics. [knowledge] as a topic is not per se part of [epistemology] or [phil-of-science]. However, one part of philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/1641/1582 has been discussed in phil of sci under the topic of relevance as a requirement of scientific facts (opposed to, say, commonsense facts); the other part under the heading ethical implications of science. So the q can be tagged with those discipline-tags.
    – DBK
    Mar 22, 2012 at 23:13
  • 1
    epistemology would probably not be a good tag to use with AI and psychology knowledge-related questions. Epistemology is a form of meta-knowledge, and it is useful to be able to refer to the ground level.
    – QuietThud
    Nov 15, 2012 at 5:56


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .