Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!keele!nott-cs!warwick!kingpol!is_s425 From: is_s425@kingston.ac.uk (Hutchison C S) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Unified model for knowledge representation? (Impossible) Keywords: descriptions, truth, reference Message-ID: <1991Jun10.094754.3303@kingston.ac.uk> Date: 10 Jun 91 09:47:54 GMT References: <9106040003.AA12879@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1991Jun04.082625.13317@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Sender: c.s.hutchison@kingston.ac.uk Organization: Kingston Polytechnic Lines: 22 Nntp-Posting-Host: sappho re: Steven Smoliar> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION I missed earlier messages, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I'm starting work in the area of descriptions and truth. Basically, the problem is this: given four descriptions of the same event (in this case, events which took place on 2nd June 1975 on the outskirts of what was then Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia) -- "Rioting blacks shot dead as ANC leaders meet" (Times of London) "Police shoot 11 dead in Salisbury riot" (Manchester Guardian) "Rebels kill 11 ANC men" (Times of Zambia) "Racists murder Zimbabweans" (Tanzanian Daily News) each report is either true (corresponds to a state of affairs in the world) or false (does not correspond). By virtue of the meanings of the words in the sentences, they cannot all be true at the same time. Yet they all report the 'same' events. My hunch is to say that the physical circumstances under- determine possible linguistic descriptions, enabling various ideological interpretations of the events. What then do readers 'know' about the events? How is knowledge in this sense distinct from mere belief? Any thoughts?