Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!think!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!seismo!mcnc!duke!mps From: mps@duke.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge Message-ID: <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 23:48:03 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.9877 Posted: Mon Jul 6 23:48:03 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jul-87 06:40:57 EDT References: <3587e521.44e6@apollo.uucp> <680@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> <1022@water.UUCP> <51@thirdi.UUCP> Reply-To: mps@duke.UUCP (Michael P. Smith) Distribution: world Organization: Duke University, Durham NC Lines: 24 Keywords: knowledge, belief, truth Summary: There is a subjective distinction between knowledge and belief In article <51@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >By the way, I don't think, from this particular, here-and-now >individual viewpoint, that one can make a valid distinction between >belief and true belief. To a person at a given time, *all* his >beliefs are true beliefs (see my "motto" below).... So knowledge = >belief = true belief, from the viewpoint of an individual at a given >time. >-- >"From his own viewpoint, no one ever has false beliefs; he only *had* >false beliefs." Each of my beliefs I believe to be true, naturally. But I do not "here-and-now" believe that all my beliefs are true. Such optimism would be epistemically irrational. "From my own viewpoint," not only have I *had* false beliefs, I surely *have* some now. I have never had any false knowledge, however, nor do I now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Unless man have a natural bent in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of understanding nature at all." C. S. Peirce Michael P. Smith ARPA mps@duke.cs.duke.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------