From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 21:22:23 GMT
Erin,
I think you're blurring the distinction between two different questions.
Matt is suggesting that there is a continuum between opinion and
knowledge which mainly operates on the idea of agreement or consensus
(solidarity). An idea held by one person we can call an opinion. An idea
widely accepted and agreed upond we can call knowledge.
This is very different from how each of those persons measures the idea
to decide to agree with it or not. This is a test for truth. Each person
makes the decision to agree. Their criteria is their own. They may
choose Pirsig's criteria, i.e. logical consistency, agreement with
experience, and economy of explanation. Or they may choose some other
criteria with less or more stringent requirements.
I think you're trying to blend these two very separate processes into
one, e.g. truth decided by majority vote.
I guess I'm saying that I see a difference between truth and knowledge.
Agreement doesn't make it true. People deciding to accept it by their
own criteria (or perhaps agreed upon criteria) makes it true. There is
still verification for truth even if we seek solidarity before declaring
it knowledge.
Does this make sense to you?
-Kevin
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge
we have lost in information?" -- T.S. Eliot
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 21:22:52 GMT