Re: Knowledge and belief

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Logical Language Group wrote:
> 
> >No argument against that. You can claim djuno as long as you
> >presuppose jetnu. If later you find out that jetnu doesn't hold, then
> >you will withdraw the djuno claim as well.
> 
> But this I think is wrong.  if I claim djuno, and we agree that it is
> true now, but then if it turns out that it is false (through presupposition
> failure or some other reasoning) then at that time we can say that it is
> false, but I do  not see how we can make the former knowing "false".

Ah, but you can *claim* something without its being true.  For
example, you can say "I have fatty degeneration of the liver", and it
may turn out (after surgery or autopsy) that you do *not* have fatty
etc.
If you live to find this out, then you will withdraw your claim, and
make a new claim:  "I believed I had f.d.l., but I did not have f.d.l."
This case, which does not involve knowledge, should be clear-cut.

Similarly, if you don't know enough optics, you may say, "I know that
red light has a wavelength of 440 nm", and George, being equally
ignorant,
may agree that this is true.  But neither assertion nor agreement
makes truth.  When you are instructed otherwise, you will repudiate
your earlier claim, saying "I did not (and do not) know that red light
etc.",
and George will say "You did not know etc."  The "knowing" was not false
(whatever that means), but the claim was incorrect.

We must carefully distinguish between the *claim* made by an utterance,
and the state of affairs that the statement *expresses*.  (Some
utterances,
such as ".ui", express but do not claim.)  Given that you are always
sincere,
then your utterance

	Bantha is a cat.

claims that Bantha is a cat, and expresses your belief that Bantha is a
cat.
A fortiori, your utterance

	I believe that Bantha is a cat.

claims that you believe etc., and expresses your belief *about your
beliefs*.
Similarly,

	I know that Bantha is a cat.

claims that you know etc., and expresses your belief *about your state
of knowledge*.  If Bantha is a dog, than your claim is incorrect and you
do not know that Bantha is a cat, but you may continue to believe Bantha
to be a cat indefinitely.

Your beliefs about your *beliefs* may be privileged (you and only you
can say if they are wrong), but your beliefs about your states of
knowledge are no more privileged than your beliefs about the wavelength
of red light.

My interpretations are false in a purely subjective (solipsistic?)
metaphysics, in which every proposition is true iff you believe it
is true, but surely that is not the default metaphysics for "djuno"!

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)