Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rigorous Mortis
Message-ID: <109@l5.uucp>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 04:21:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.109
Posted: Thu Sep 12 04:21:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:10:48 EDT
References: <103@l5.uucp> <1544@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco
Lines: 30


There is nothing in:

	Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence

which rules out the existence of subjective truth. It is simply a definition
of (objective) knowledge. If you want to include subjective knowledge in
this definition, you will have a different belief in what constitutes
``sufficient evidence'' than most objectivists. If you merely want  to
believe that this defines objective knowledge (and thus should be
restates as:

	Objective knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence

you may then be able to formulate a corallery such as:

	Subjective knowledge is true belief for which there cannot be
	sufficient evidence.

What I mean to point out is that there are certain axioms which cannot be
proven in everybody's belief system.  This is a good one to use since it
occurs in nearly everybody's belief system, no matter  what their other
beliefs. Note that just because these cannot be proven does not make them
untrue -- (by what definition? :-) ) but simply unprovable.


-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa