trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/04/83)
Response to Larry Cipriani on knowledge: The addition of context to the definition of knowledge does have an advantage. It allows limited certainty - not "probability", but certainty. Typically, when one is not certain, there will be someone standing by to judge one's motives and to say "but can you be sure you are right?" If one is not certain, within the limits of one's knowledge of the context, one cannot fully justify an action against such an attack. (One is always limited by the context of what one knows, at the current moment. As I pointed out before, to require more than that is to require something that is not possible for humans, and so creates a "straw man" concept of knowledge.) Keeping the context of one's knowledge in mind allows one to make a logically positive statement of the context and the knowledge. Then, the burden of proving that there are additional factors in the current context that must be considered, or of proving a flaw in the logic that led to the presumed knowledge, lies with the person attacking one's declared knowledge. This is not "just a trick", any more than the rules of logic are. The same technique should be used when one doubts one's own knowledge - one examines the context for additional factors that are important, and examines the logic that led to the presumed knowledge. If one can find no flaw, one is justified in continuing to call it knowledge. That does not mean that it is knowledge, but that one has strong evidence for it, and no evidence that it is wrong, and so the burden of proof of falsehood lies with anyone challenging its truth. It provides the defense against the "How do you know?" type of attacks. (Such an attack does not require any real thought - just a rejection of the ability of the human mind to know (practically) anything. Adding context to the definition of knowledge is what validates the above, but I would claim that it is a "natural" part of the definition as well. This can be seen by examining some things that one thinks one knows, such as "My phone is sitting in front of me on my desk". One assumes that there is no one playing tricks with holograms or telepaths projecting illusions into one's mind - that the context is "normal". Tom Craver houti!trc