🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <142@Cavell.UUCP> jim@cavell.UUCP (Jim Laycock) writes:

>We must also be careful, in our discussion, to steer away from the colloquial
>definition of knowledge.  Our 'knowledge' is a technical term, and is to be
>divorced from "acquainted with" or "have a pretty good idea about".

If it's a technical term, then surely it should have a strict definition, and I
haven't seen one being offered recently.  Somebody should stick his neck out.

I also don't see why "knowledge" in a scientific context is any more or less
knowledge than the "knowledge" that we have in our everyday lives.

I am in favor of defining things; I think the proferred definition should
cover both scientific and non-scientific usages, or else we should use two
different words or phrases to describe the different forms of knowledge and a
strict criterion should be offered for separating them.

I rather liked *my* definition (Why not? Everyone likes his own ideas!):
knowledge is certainty.  I realize this is a subjective definition, but our
attempts to find an objective one have so far failed.  I'm open to suggestions
as to how to define "knowledge" objectively.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge