Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf
From: rjf@eagle.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Justified true belief
Message-ID: <3259@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 15-Aug-87 08:49:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.3259
Posted: Sat Aug 15 08:49:04 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Aug-87 18:40:50 EDT
References: <90@thirdi.UUCP> <142@cavell.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney)
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 50

Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <90@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>[..about knowledge as justified true belief..]
>
>In order to avoid this problem, it seems that one would have to add another
>proviso to the "justified true belief" criterion, namely that one would
>require justified true belief also in each of the non-ultimate terms in a
>causal or explanatory chain..
>..So you would have trouble, using this criterion,
>saying that you know anything.

In article <142@cavell.UUCP> jiml@cavell.UUCP (Jim Laycock) writes:
>
>  This is just what I was saying some time ago.  I'll accept the definition
>of knowledge as "justified true belief", but then I'll insist (for the very
>reasons you pointed out above) that, given this definition, knowledge is
>not attainable.  But we shouldn't despair at this fact, nor should we
>lapse into relativism.  There's alot we can do with well-substatiated
>and well-corroborated evidence.
>  We must also be careful, in our discussion, to steer away from the
>colloquial definition of knowledge.  Our `knowledge' is a technical term, and
>is to be divorced from "acquainted with" or "have a pretty good idea about"
>concepts.
>-- 
>  Jim Laycock		Philosophy grad, University of Alberta

As the person who first (in this group :-) I think :-) ) suggested the
justified true belief definition, I'm totally with Jim on this one. I
long ago came to the conclusion that knowledge, in strict terms is
impossible, though I used another route to get to this point. I won't go
into that here - it would make for a rather long posting, and I'd probably
get flamed to death from people who are tired of consciousness/subjectivity/
objectivity discussions in mod.ai or whatever it is now. Suffice it to say
that I have reason to believe that objectivity, strictly speaking, is
impossible, and that knowledge is an intrinsically objectivist (using that
word very loosely) concept. Maybe it was a mistake to say even that much.
Ah well.. I hereby give notice that I *WILL NOT* reply to articles or email
on this subject, unless in the meantime I think of a very simple and unsubtle
explanation of it :-)  Unlikely, I'm afraid. If anyone is interested, hunt
up `Mortal Questions' by Thomas Nagel, pub. Harvester Press (in UK), 1978
(I think), and read the last two chapters. If you're interested and open-
minded I can promise an utterly fascinating read.

>"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."
>
>Sarge Gerbode

Does anyone still believe in absolute knowledge? (Outside of religious
experience, PLEASE)

Robin   rjf@ukc.ac.uk   ..mcvax!ukc!rjf