Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rigorous Mortis
Message-ID: <1697@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 15:22:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1697
Posted: Sat Sep 14 15:22:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 00:28:24 EDT
References: <103@l5.uucp> <1544@umcp-cs.UUCP> <109@l5.uucp>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 23

> There is nothing in:
> 	Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence
> which rules out the existence of subjective truth. [LAURA]

Can you call it "subjective truth"?  What basis can you use for calling it
"true"?  Subjective BELIEFS, certainly.

> 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.

You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you feel
like it.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr