Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
corrected if the belief prov
other perspectives (e.g. the
line, the corpus of knowled
that having been seen to b
different times
t' t
, ha
unsuccessful from any othe
Our view is a pragmati
knowledge is not a question
making a reference to the q
to be the basis of the accep
even admit that he has not
why
seems to count now
We will introduce in t
perspectives to proposition
the examples that have floo
knowledge of the last dec
difficult cases such as Harm
ves at some point to be unsuccessful at
t
from any of
e dog's example: Tim didn't
actually
know). In the sa
dge of an individual
B
at a time
t
consists of all the bel
be successful from the relative perspective taken by
B
ave not revealed themselves yet for
B
, up to time
t
,
er perspective.
2
istic
3
one. Observe that, as with Levi (1980, p.1), for
n of pedigree. When
A
says that
B
knows that
,
A
is
quality of those premises and derivations that are suppo
ptance of
as knowledge. In fact, most of the time
A
w
the faintest idea of the story of
, that is, of the reas
w as a belief for
B
.
the following pages, the first, second, and third per
nal knowledge, and by doing that we will refer to some
oded, and continue to flood, the literature on propositio
cades. In particular, our approach will fit in nicely w
man's or Stanley's bank examples.
the
ame
liefs
B
at
, as
r us
not
osed
will
sons
rson
e of
onal
with
2
Three Points of
View to Propositional Knowledge
2.1
The First Person Pe
erspective
Let us begin with a look
observe a group of ten boys
building. After the children
someone falling down and c
at one particular situation. In a playground two teach
s and one girl running towards the back of the school m
n have disappeared behind the building, the teachers h
crying. They have then the following conversation:
hers
main
hear
(A) Oh, I believe that on
(B) How could you possi
(A) Well, I don't
know
it
In this example (A) bel
However he also admits
knowledge at
t
0
by the pers
perspective (which he assu
justified at
t
0
. Observe as w
and (A) discovered it afterw
knew at
t
0
that a boy had fa
that
at
t
0
that he confirm
2
It could be the case that a be
at a time
t
, was successful fo
vice versa. When that happ
belief.
3
Observe that we are follow
distinguish himself from that
ne of the boys has fallen down.
ibly know that?
but it seems pretty likely, don't you think?
lieves at a time
t
0
that one of the boys has fallen do
to not knowing it. The belief
fails
to be identified
son having it although, as (A) points out to (B), from (A
umes to be a common perspective) the belief seems a
well that even if one of the boys had actually fallen do
wards at another time
t
1
, he still would not say at
t
1
that
llen down. That is, (A) may have had a justified true be
ms at
t
1
,
and still not say at
t
1
that he knew at
t
0
that
. T
elief that was unsuccessful for an individual from one perspec
or the same individual and from the same perspective at
t'
>
t
,
pens we are only considering the most recent evaluation of
wn.
d as
A)'s
also
wn,
t he
elief
The
ctive
and
f the
wing Peirce's own term (pragmaticism) which he introduced
t of William James.
d to
