Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rigorous Mortis
Message-ID: <1544@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 09:02:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1544
Posted: Wed Sep 11 09:02:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 23:36:03 EDT
References: <103@l5.uucp>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 24

In article <103@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:

>Rich, I think that one of your assumptions is the standard objectivist [Note
>Small ``o''] definition of knowledge:

>This can be formulated many ways. The way I like best is:

>	Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence.

>Note that this says nothing about what the sufficient evidence is. What it
>says is that if you have sufficient evidence for your belief then you have
>something called knowledge (which is also true.)

    . . . .

>However, I would tend to go with the first model, because I have never
>actually seen anyone whose set of Knowledges did not also include the
>first definition. There is no way that I can logically prove any more
>than the consistency of believing in this, however.

As the definition has been stated, I don't see that it rules out knowledge
of *subjective* truth.

Charley Wingate