Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Justified true belief
Message-ID: <128@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Aug-87 01:27:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.128
Posted: Sun Aug 30 01:27:22 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 20:05:22 EDT
References: <111@thirdi.UUCP> <2606@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Distribution: world
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 62
Keywords: knowledge definition
Summary: A simpler definition of "definition".

In article <2606@ihlpl.ATT.COM> rsl@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Richard S. Latimer) writes:

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

I don't understand what you mean by "knowledge notion".

>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.
>
>
>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?

I can't say I really understand what you mean.  What's "a mental grasping of
facts of reality"?  "Knowing things"?

If this is the case, then I think that's quite a different thing from
giving a definition.

Some definitions might contain genera and differentia (like the classical
"featherless biped"), but I don't think they *all* do.

I prefer a simpler definition of "definition":

Let's call an object that is intended to convey a concept (a word, phrase,
symbol, picture, gesture, etc.) a "token".  Then:

Token A is a definition of token B iff Token A and token B refer to the same
concept.

Note that the relation "is a definition of" is commutative.  So B would also
be a definition of A.

Latimer's notion of definition would not cover, for instance, ostensive
definitions.  In the exchange:

Q: "What is 'Jane'?" A: "[Points to Jane].",

it is hard to think of hierarchical structures of genera.  Note that even this
ostensive definition is commutative:

Q: "[Points to Jane]?" A: "That is Jane."
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge