[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Craig,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [ Steve]
>> What I mean when I say that I know something is that I think I am > justified in believing that what I am saying is true.
>
>
> You also assert that it is true.
> "I believe p but I may be wrong."
> "I have justification for p but I may be wrong."
> But generally not "I know p but I may be wrong."


Steve:
I think pragmatism is not skepticism about knowledge but skepticism
about knowledge of knowledge. In other words, I Think it is possible
to be justified in believing something true, so it is possible to
know. But no one has developed a way to know that you know and no such
method seems top be forthcoming.




> [Steve, from "Lexicon"]
>>  What one may be justified in believing to be true may not actually
>> be true. Truth is independent of justification and belief.
>
>
>Craig:
> Practically independent or conceptually/logically independent.  It is true that having justification
> or having belief,  does not guarantee truth.  But the concepts are not totally independent.
> Could there be a truth which it is logically impossible to believe or justifiy?


Steve:
Propositions that we can justify as true are believed to be more
likely to be true than propositions that we can justify as false, so
there is some significant connection between justification and truth.
It's just that justification of a proposition doesn't make it true.
Something can be true whether or not we are justified in believing it.
That's all I meant by "independent."

Best,
Steve