Brent Meeker wrote: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the usual definition of knowledge is: > >A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it >true.
You mean causal, I guess. Indeed. But this definition leads to insurmontable problems. With comp, through UDA, such causal connections are not needed. The origin of the belief in "causal connections" is what still need to be explained. And that is what I am explaining to George. I will try to give the substance of my explanation soon. To make a pun the connections are indeed more casual than causal. Bruno