Perhaps the point of the speech act "I know that P" rests in the speaker's assurance that she can provide evidence and argumentation sufficient to convince others of the truth (or rightness) of P. (That is always a fallible claim, of course.) This in differentiation from "I believe that P" where no such assurance is meant. Not sure whether this helps. But thank you Donal for a very well thought-out posting. Walter O. MUN Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > --- Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Usually (and there may be some on the list who will dispute this) > > Yeh, me. > > > A knows not-p only if not-p. > > What is disputed here? > > It is not disputed that 'to know' can be defined in such a way that that 'to > know x' entails 'x (is true)'. But 'to know', and its offshoots - including > the term 'knowledge', can be deployed without this restriction. > > The definitional/conceptual question is, I suggest, only worth considering > insofar as it reflects an underlying and substantive dispute as to how we > should view 'knowledge' and 'knowing'. > > First two points concern ordinary usage: (a) ordinary usage cannot be > decisive of how 'to know etc' should be deployed _even if ordinary usage is > unequivocal in how the term is deployed_: this is because ordinary usage may > reflect or conceal a mistaken view of how knowledge works; (b) ordinary > usage > is in any case equivocal. > > There are examples we might point to where, as against the assertion 'I know > x', we might use the falsity of x to argue/insist that 'You might have > thought it, believed it etc. - but you did not know it.' But there are many > examples where we deploy 'to know' without the implication as to truth. A > witness in a murder trial testifies 'I know the accused was out of country > at > the time of the murder'. When questioned, the basis for their 'knowing' is > that the accused told them they were leaving the country, the witness left > the accused to the airport/saw their plane ticket/ waved to them as they > passed check-in etc. in the hours before the murder. As it turns out, the > accused doubled-back having checked-in and was not on the scheduled plane. > But is the witness lying when the witness says 'I know the accused was out > of > the country'? Surely not. Is the witness mistaken? Well, that depends on how > 'to know' is defined - but surely it is ordinary understanding to read the > claim 'I know x' as here meaning 'I believed, on what seem to me sufficient > grounds to justify a knowledge claim, that x'. The witness may be mistaken > 'that x' but, on this view, is neither dishonest nor mistaken in claiming 'I > know x'. > > If we accept that all knowledge is fallible, and insist that 'I know x' > entails 'x', then all claims of the type 'I know x' are potentially mistaken > - since they are liable to be overturned by showing that 'x' is false. If > this is so then on this definition should we always preface 'I know x' with > 'Of course, I may be mistaken but..'? But this seems self-defeating. > > The reality is that all we need to do is clearly distinguish 'knowledge' > from > 'truth' and accept that all knowledge is conjectural. On this basis it is > supposed truth of 'x' that may be overturned by showing 'x' is false. But > the > historical fact that 'x' was believed with what were thought sufficient > reasons, and in that sense 'x was known', is not overturned. > > A question:- given that Newton's theories are false, must we conclude that > anyone who claimed to 'know' that they were right did not 'know' this? Must > we further conclude that Newton's theories were no contribution to human > knowledge because, by definition, no one ever 'knew' the theories to be > true? > If they were a contribution to human knowledge, despite being false, in what > way are they knowledge? > > These questions may lead to others that bring into overall question whether > we should conceive knowledge in terms of justified true belief ['JTB'] > and/or > assume that 'to know x' entails 'x is true'. > > Donal > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it > now. > http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html