Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!ihlpl!rsl
From: rsl@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Richard S. Latimer                         )
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Justified true belief
Message-ID: <2606@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 12:45:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpl.2606
Posted: Fri Aug 28 12:45:15 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 01:55:57 EDT
References: <111@thirdi.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 26
Keywords: knowledge definition
Summary: Definition of knowledge. [?]

> From: Sarge Gerbode
> I am in favor of defining things; ...

> I rather liked *my* definition (Why not? Everyone likes his own ideas!):
> knowledge is certainty.

A proper definition needs to identify the `genus' or class to which
the concept belongs and the `differentia' or differences which
distinguish the concept from others in that class.

"Knowledge is certainty" is thus NOT a proper definition (it only
indicates how you feel with regard your `knowlegde notion').

How about?:  genus = a hierarchial structure of inter-related thoughts
    and      differentia = derived from actual sensations/perceptions
		(i.e. from reality) integrated via logical
		(non-contradictory) methods (i.e. through reasoning).
Thus:  definition = a hierarchial structure of inter-related thoughts,
			derived from actual sensations/perceptions
			integrated via logical methods.
Or a `short form': "a mental grasping of facts of reality".

How do you like that definition?  If it is unsatisfactory, can you
identify a clearer or more precise genus and/or differentia?
-- 
Eudaemonia,  Richard S. Latimer [(312)-416-7501, ihnp4!ihlpl!rsl]