lvc@cbscd5.UUCP (07/29/83)
I do not see any advantage to the introduction of a "context" in the definition of knowledge. The way that I organize my thoughts is to put them in several catagories. The first being "Knowledge", with a capital K. These would be facts that will never be contradicted by new facts learned sometime in the future, because *no alternative is possible*. (For example, the laws of logic. We may make additions to the laws of logic as we discover them of course. One should also keep in mind that very little falls in this category, but it is not empty.) The next would be "knowledge", with a lower case k. This would include those facts which have been confirmed over and over again but which have no necessity about them. For example, the physical laws. Newtons physics worked for quite a long time until certain phenomena could not be explained by it. Modern physics explains much, but one day it could be contradicted (which should be easy to do, it's such a mess). The next category would be "everything else". Untested ideas, whims, wishes, and fantasies. These thoughts should not be considered knowledge because they are merely products of my imagination. These catagories could be extended, but the organization is retained. The use of a "context" to reassure oneself that one's knowledge is certain buys you nothing. The problem remains that tomorrow what you knew (lower case k) today might not be true tomorrow. Larry Cipriani cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc