Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!ubc-anchor!andrews From: andrews@ubc-anchor.uucp (Jamie Andrews) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge Message-ID: <1537@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 13:15:23 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1537 Posted: Wed Jul 8 13:15:23 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 14:28:07 EDT References: <3587e521.44e6@apollo.uucp> <680@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> <1022@water.UUCP> <51@thirdi.UUCP> <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu> Sender: nobody@ubc-cs.UUCP Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) Distribution: world Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 21 Keywords: knowledge, belief, truth In article <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu> mps@duke.UUCP (Michael P. Smith) writes: >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. So Michael feels that ( \exists X (Bel(X) & ~X) ) ...but he cannot actually exhibit such an X, because he also feels that ( \forall X (Bel(X) -> ~Bel(~X)) ). However, he does feel that there is a "knows" connective, with the property that ( \forall X (Kn(X) -> X) ). Is this a good summary? Or are you trying to avoid syntactic systems altogether? I was going to add a comment, but I realized I'm out of my depth. Can anyone suggest a good summary paper of logics which encompass the notion of belief? --Jamie. ...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "What made it special, made it dangerous"