Re: Knowledge-related roots in sabyuk

 --- John Cowan <jcowan@...> wrote: >
=?iso-8859-1?q?bnathyuw?= scripsit:
>
> > The difference is that a speaker uses |Gop|
> > when s/he considers the thought content to be true
> and
> > justified ( English use of 'know' ),
>
> What about Gettier counterexamples?
>
sorry, maybe i should have said English _meaning_ of
'know', tho that doesn't quite cover it either. on
second thougts maybe i shouldn't have bothered being
quite so precise :

The difference is that a speaker uses |Gop| when s/he
thinks the person is right in believing the thought
content.

Don't think that works either . . .

anyway, the original point is that there are at least
two different ways of looking at knowledge v
non-knowledge belief :

pov of the person with the thought content
pov of the person talking about the thought content

english standardly uses the second system, so when i
say 'i know x' someone would report this as 'matthew
thinks he knows x'. that is, i say 'know' when i think
i can stick up for this belief ( roughly speaking ),
and 'think' when i'm not so sure.

in short i can neither say 'x knows y but s/he's
wrong' nor 'i know y but i'm wrong'

you could imagine another system ( and i've heard it
in non-standard usage ) where 'know' means something
like 'is convinced'. in this system the speaker
doesn't pass judgment on someone else's belief, but
rather reports their attitude towards this belief.

in short, this time i _can_ say 'x knows y but s/he's
wrong' without contracting myself.

my original point is that bac does the first of these.

>
> Four men set sail from Boston on 8 November 1918
> with the justified
> false belief that the War in Europe was over
> (reports to that effect
> had been circulated in the newspapers).  They
> arrived in Bermuda
> four days later with no further information, but now
> their belief
> was true.  However, it did not count as knowledge,
> because the
> justification and truth were entirely independent of
> each other.
>
> The following four rules explain knowledge:
>
> X knows p if and only if:
>
> 1) X believes p;
>
> 2) p is true;
>
> 3) if X weren't true, P wouldn't believe it;
>
> 4) if X were true, P would believe it.
if i remember rightly ( five years and many synapses
ago ) it isn't even _that_ simple.

hmmm. now i remember why i never got past BA
philosophy . . . !

bn

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com