| In a message dated 3/21/2001 3:41:38 PM Central Standard Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes: I never claimed "good evidence", or "evidence you and I Nope. Its true meaning is "being in that certain cognitive state with respect to a certain proposition" Evidence, epistemology, and whatever else you want to throw in of a justificatory sort are simply irrelevant to whether or not a person believes that p; all that counts is the person's psychological state and p's role in it. It may be that the personalso knows that p, which is to say, that in addition to believing that p (being inthe appropriate psychological state), he also believes a number of other things which are within veldjuno and which collectively support p, and believes that they do, and, further, p is true in veldjuno. Notice that belief cannot be dropped out of this description in favor of knowing-minus, but rather is needed in its pure sense to get to knowledge. None of this, even that the beliefs are in a particular epistemology has any place in "believes." We could (with some minor problems) get rid of {djuno}, but not of {krici}. [BTW {krici} is not a meaningless term if it has a “true meaning.” That “true meaning” is just away that it is used (quite justifiably as noted earlier) in certain rhetorical moves.] |