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