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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------