My last post today! In a message dated 3/11/2015 5:13:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: Coming to examples such as: "The student knew [that] the date of the battle of Waterloo [was June 18, 1815]," this is really a very loose use of 'knew' Well, but I'm not surprised Grice chose an example from history, for he was interested in a "p" (in "A knows that p") which is contingent, synthetic, a posteriori -- unless it ain't. A philosopher of history was involved with the shape of the nose of Cleopatra. He knew that Cleopatra's nose was beautiful. He also knew that, had Cleopatra's nose not been so beautiful, the Roman Empire would have never taken place (because Mark Antony would never have betrayed Octavian nor be defeated at Actium). So, I recommend we replace 'student' by 'historian'. Recall, those who know, DO; those who don't, TEACH (or so the ironic adage goes). When Grice speaks of a 'restriction', he has in mind the idea that the student (or historian) couldn't have just DREAMED (that the date of the Battle of Waterloo was June 18, 1805). (Cfr. literature on the cognitive side of dreams and premonitory dreams -- but a premonitory dream would apply here if the student or historian dreamed about the Battle of Waterloo BEFORE it occurred? Geary disagrees and speaks of postmonitory dreams, which are pieces of 'defeasible knowledge',, in his words). The student or historian must have consulted the right books, which are based on adequate evidence that corroborate that the date of the Battle of Waterloo was June 18, 1805. And it is this fact that is linked to the historian's belief, which, the proposition stating the fact being true, turns the historian's mere belief into proper knowledge. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html