Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf From: rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge Message-ID: <3189@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 08:20:49 EDT Article-I.D.: eagle.3189 Posted: Fri Jul 10 08:20:49 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 14:03:10 EDT References: <3587e521.44e6@apollo.uucp> <680@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> <1022@water.UUCP> <51@thirdi.UUCP> <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu> Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney) Distribution: world Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Lines: 19 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: It's a fair time since I studied epistemology (approaching 10 years), but I seem to remember a concensus of opinion amoung my fellow students that the best definition of knowledge was `justified true belief'. It must be justified because to believe something which is true, but for a bad reason (eg I was told it by someone who I did not have good reason to trust), should not be counted knowledge. The major difference between knowledge and belief (in my opinion) is that the concept of knowledge is objective, assuming the reality (and perhaps the assertainability, for justification) of the absolute truth or falsity of a proposition, while the concept of belief says nothing about the outside world, only indicating an aspect of a state of mind. Unfortunately (ain't it always so) I cannot recall which philosopher first proposed this (first part of the foregoing) definition. It don't bother me none, but how come this discussion hasn't been burned right out of sci.philosophy.tech? Robin Faichney ..mcvax!ukc!rjf rjf@uk.ac.ukc