--- On Tue, 19/4/11, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Indeed, Hintikka, in his "Logic of Knowledge" proposes > to call "Socrates" > -- 'the agnotological agent'. > > For Hintikka, it is a theorem: > > If S knows that p, S knows that he knows that p. Speaking off the cuff, if this is what Hintikka says, it seems wrong to me: either the "knows" is a redundancy (with no secondary meaning) or it is a meta-knowing - a higher level knowing that pertains to some lower level knowledge about p. It does not obviously follow, even within a subjectivist theory like 'epistemic logic', that because 'I know p' I am further aware of having knowledge that 'I know p' beyond the mere fact of having a mental state that might be described as 'I know p'. There is an infinite regress looming otherwise: for surely then if 'I know p' entails 'I know that I know p' it also entails 'I know that I know that I know p' etc.; and yet 'I know p' is surely a finite mental state and not one that spins off into infinity. What might be argued is that I cannot claim both that 'I know p' and that 'I know that I do not know p'. But this would not mean that 'I know p' entails some further knowing-state only that it rules out as a further knowing-state one that it is inconsistent with it. In fact, this is arguably true if we substitute 'believe' for 'know': I cannot at the same time both 'believe p' and 'believe that I do not believe p'. Where does this get us though? Btw, Hintikka is also a defender of inductive logic isn't he? Also btw, for Popper "epistemic logic" is a subjectivist blunder in the theory of knowledge: largely irrelevant and point-missing. Btw, so is 'inductive logic' mostly. Donal ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html