Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Sure rather than right
Message-ID: <373@houti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Aug-83 12:35:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.373
Posted: Mon Aug  8 12:35:57 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Aug-83 21:59:19 EDT
Lines: 22

Response to Paul Torek on context in knowledge:

The emphasis in "are you sure you are right" is generally put upon the
word "sure", rather than "right", and it was in this sense that I addressed
it.  I was not referring only to the ethical "right", but the common sense
of "correct".  It would be sufficient to shorten the question to "How can
you be sure?", which still has the same meaning "no-one can *really* know
(much of) anything".  Again - the contextual definition of knowledge
is not aimed at "help[ing] us justify actions". 

The "best justified belief" is not sufficient for knowledge - on what basis
does one judge "best" a justification"?  A creationist might say "I justify
my belief on what the Bible says" - and unless you could *prove* his
supposed "knowledge" false (another condition for knowledge), one could
only disagree on the basis of belief, never on any factual basis.  If no 
context is provided, an attacker can keep tossing up new circumstances that 
might apply, forever.  By requiring that the person describe the context in 
which the stated belief is true, one provides the possibility of testing the 
belief, and hence of eventually justifying it or dismissing it.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc