trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/08/83)
Response to Paul Torek on context in knowledge: The emphasis in "are you sure you are right" is generally put upon the word "sure", rather than "right", and it was in this sense that I addressed it. I was not referring only to the ethical "right", but the common sense of "correct". It would be sufficient to shorten the question to "How can you be sure?", which still has the same meaning "no-one can *really* know (much of) anything". Again - the contextual definition of knowledge is not aimed at "help[ing] us justify actions". The "best justified belief" is not sufficient for knowledge - on what basis does one judge "best" a justification"? A creationist might say "I justify my belief on what the Bible says" - and unless you could *prove* his supposed "knowledge" false (another condition for knowledge), one could only disagree on the basis of belief, never on any factual basis. If no context is provided, an attacker can keep tossing up new circumstances that might apply, forever. By requiring that the person describe the context in which the stated belief is true, one provides the possibility of testing the belief, and hence of eventually justifying it or dismissing it. Tom Craver houti!trc