andrel wrote:
> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
>>> right.
>>
>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've 
>> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
> 
> Again, that is not what I did.

"Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that believe 
think they *know* they are right" is correct.

> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That 
> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.

It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you were 
kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping in front 
of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your belief.

If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of the 
USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.

As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one might 
not know if there was sufficient justification.

>> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually 
>> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by 
>> overstating their knowledge.
> 
> I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to 
> convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement

Right.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message