Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <1161@pdn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 19:57:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: pdn.1161
Posted: Wed Aug 26 19:57:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 08:53:57 EDT
References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <66@thirdi.UUCP> <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> <68@thirdi.UUCP> <1541@botter.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 25
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty

In article <1541@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes:
>Summary:
>Expires:
>Sender:
>Followup-To:
>
>In article <68@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>As to the question of what constitutes the force of logic, I
>would like to repeat my original statement. Without belief there is no
>communication. But humans are by nature social beings who can

One of the more interesting results of semiotics is that in order for
something to serve as a "sign", it must be possible for the "sign" to
be in error.  In other words, there can be no symbolic communication
without the possibility of lying (or at least being mistaken).  If
messages can inherently be false, then communication inherently
requires belief in the veracity of the message.

It is precisely the ability to be false that gives messages their power;
it would otherwise be impossible to discuss the hypothetical cases, the "might
be's", "might have been's", "could be's" and "should have been's".
Abstractions require the ability to signify what is not.

--Alan "true, false, both true and false, neither true nor false"
  Lovejoy