trc@houti.UUCP (07/21/83)
Response to Charlie Kaufman on "knowing": I think that your definition is somewhat better, by virtue of being based upon testable reality, rather than upon some mystical absolute truth. However, I think that neither definition is really practical or applicable to real human beings. To "know" something is to be *certain* of it. Since both the original definition and your modified definition would require knowledge unavailable to humans (without omniscience or precognition), no one could ever claim to be certain of anything. I would claim that the fault lies in that the definition is a "straw man", that obscures a simple and valid concept of "knowing". This allows the concept of "certainty" to be attacked, defeated, and put aside, without really addressing the real concept. I think that a definition that better applies to what "knowing" means for humans is: "One has strong evidence for something, and no perceptions - remembered or immediate, or knowledge of evidence that contradict the concept." (Note the recursive nature - one must check everything one already knows, as well as perceptions. The recursion ends at the perceptual level.) Note that there is no reference to a requirement of absolute or future truth, and that belief in the "certain" thing is an outcome of the process that leads to knowledge - disallowing any baseless faith, as allowed in the original definition by making "belief" a criterion for truth. It is true that contradictions may be discovered in the future, either through new perceptions, or through a more complete integration of old knowledge. Until such are discovered, however, there will be no problem (by definition - all of reality encountered *until the problem is discovered* will match one's knowledge). Thus, such a definition is workable, and allows for correcting one's knowledge, if reality proves it incorrect. So long as one is willing to accept the "correction" of reality, there is no problem with saying "I am sure" about something, if one has met the criterion of the definition. Note that the problem of different people knowing contradictory things goes away also. If those two people meet, and share their knowledge, (and accept each other's perceptions as valid), it becomes possible for them to resolve the contradiction. Tom Craver houti!trc