HAL Id: ijn_00000444
https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000444
Submitted on 12 Feb 2004
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
To cite this version:
Pascal Engel. Is truth the aim of belief?. Donald Gillies. Laws and models in science, to appear King’s College London publicationd, 2003, ESF. �ijn_00000444�
! " # !$ %! # # # # # & ' # !
# ! ! ! ! ( !
# ! ( # ! ! ! ! ! !
(! ( # ) ' ' ! !
* ' " #$ '! ' ! # ! ' !
' ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ! ! # # # !
# ! # ) !
* # # ( # ! ! #
+ ! (! ! # ' ! ( # ! (! #
' ! # !,- ,
%! ! ' (! # ! !
.# %! ! # (! #
(! ! # ! / # ! ! !
! (! ! # # # !
( (! # 0 !
! (
%! ! ! ! # ! # ! ( !
! " # $ ! )
0 0 - ! ! # ! ! ! ! !
1 I borrow this phrase from Velleman 2000. Other writers, for instance Walker (2001 ) , talk about “truth aimedness”
# # # # ! # #
! # ! ! ! ! # #
%! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! # !
%! #* ! ! # # # & ' )
' #, # # # # # #
! ! (! ' ! ! & ' ! # & '
# # # ! # # !
/ (
( # ' ! ( ! ! ( ! !
#' # # 0 (! ! ' ! !
( ! # ! %! ' # !
! (! ! # ' ! # ! ! # #
& ' ! (! ! ! # ! !
/ ! !(! !( ' ! ! 1 # ! # '
(! !! ! !
( ! ! # ! %! # ! * #
( 2 # ! 2 !
( # ! ! ! ! ' (! ! 2 2 ! !
' # - # ! ! ! '
(! ' ' (! ! ! !
/ ! % ! ! ( # '
# # ( (! !( ! ( (
! ! ( ! - ! (
' # ( ! 3 # 4555 ! 455.6 ) ( ! !
( * ! ! ! ( !
(! !( / ! # !
! ! ! # ! ! # !
( / ! * # ! ! !
' ! !
+ ' ! # ! ! ! # ) ! ! !
# (! ! ! ! !
! !
%! ! (! ! # ' ! # !
# ! (! ! # ! (! # '
/ # ! ! '! (! !
%! ' / ! !
% ! 0 7 !
! ! # ! " #$ ! ! !
( ! ( ! ( ! ' ! ! '" #$
' # ! ! '" #$ !, - 0 !
(! 8 " '$ (! ! 0 # '
( ' ) ! ' 9 !
! : ; 7 # '*" !
$ %! ! ! #
! ! ( # ! !
# ' ' # ! ! # ! ; ) # !
( ! ! ' ! ! ' ; 0 !
! ! ' ! / # (! ! # + ! '
# ! ! ! #
%! ( # ( ' (! ! ! ! ! !
+ ! # # ! ! ! " $
3- # .<=> .<>?6 ) / ! # !
"( # $ * ! ' ! ( (! !
@ ! "# ( $ *! ' ! ! ! (
! # ! ! ' + !
! (! ! ) !
# ! # # ! ! ! 3
1 # .<<4 A B 455.6
%! ! ( ' ! ' ! #
- ! '
0 ! ( ' ! ( ! !
( (! ! : ' ( # !
# ( ! 'C / * ! !
( ' ! ( ' ; ( (! !
3 / .<> *.=64 8 ( ! ( #
%! : ! # ! '*
"- ! 7 ! ( ! ! !
(! ! ! 0 ! $3 # !.<< *
..= 6
%! # # ! *(! ! # ;
# ' : '( ! # ' 7 '
! ! ! ( !
7 ! ! ! ) 8 # 3.<D56 ! ! " #
!$ + ! # ( ! ( (! ! !
( # ! " $( ! ! #
(! ! # ( ! *
"- ' ( ! # ! # !
! ( # ; # ! ! !
! # ! # ' ! ( ! ! !
# ! ! ( / ( !
# $38 # .<D?*. <6
- ! !8 # ! / ! ! !
# # ! !
! ! ! ! ) ! (! !
! * # ! /
(! ! ! ! ' ! / (! !
( ! ! ! ! / E ! ' ! ! /
! ! / (! ! ( ! %! (
# (
% ! ' # # ) ! '
, ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! # #
(! ! 3 ! 6 ! '
2 For a defense of this view as an interpretation of the aiming at truth feature and against belief-voluntarism, see Bennett 1990
# ! * ( ! ! ( ! !
! ! ! ! ! 2 (!
2 ! %! # ! !
3 ( ! ( 6 #
) ! ' ! # ! * ! /
! ! 0 ! ! ! # !
! ! "( # $ %! ' ! !
! ! ! # ! ' !
! # ! 3 # 455.*4 <6
" # $ !
! ' ! (! ! '
E ! ' ! 0 (! ! ! !
! ! # !
* # ' (! ! (! !
) ! # ! !
! ' ( ' ' (! #
' ( ' ! # (! ! /
3( ! ' ! ' ! ! ! ?6 9 # (!
! ! ! F ! F %! # ' /
! # ( ( ! ! E ! # ! ! (
! ! ! ! # ! # ' ! !
! ! ! ( ! ! !
-# ! ! (! !( ! ! ! #
# (! ! # !' ! !
! !' ! # (! ! !' ! # ! !
! %! # ! ' ! 7 ! (! !
) ! ! (! !
(! ! ! ! *( ! - ( # ' ! !
# ' (! ( # (! ( ' ! # ! %! #
3 It’s a disputed question what the exact form for expressing normative properties is. See in particular Broome (2000). I adopt here the framework of what I call normative conditionals in Engel 2002. On these issues, see also Zangwill 1998 and Wedgwood 2002
! ' ! # # # # !
# G ! ! 6 G ' (! ! #
& # ! # ' (! *
3 %H6
9 ! ' (! ! (! ! ( ! '
( ( # ( ! 9 # ! # !
# ! / ! ! ! ! = # ' ! !
4?= =. #' # ' (!' ! , G/ (
( ! '## %H ' ! 9
## 7 ! ( # ( I' #
! ! - # # ! # !
! ' ! ( ! ' ! (! ! ' !
1 ! # ! # ! ! 3 %H6
*
3 %6
(! ! ! ! & ! ' # ( !
(! 3 %6 7 ! ! ,- ( ! 0 '
! ! ' ! ! # '
* # ' (! # ' 7 '
! # 3 %6 %! # ! # # # ( !
! ! # # * # (! ! ! ! F !
! ! ! F E ! ! ! !
# ! E ! ! !
!' ! ! ! !
( # ' / (! 3 %6 #, (! 7
! ! ! ! # # ,9
4 It is important to specify that it is a norm for belief, since it should not imply that truth is in itself a norm. I investigate this issue in Engel 2000 and Engel 2002, ch. 5.
5 In Sartre’s novel La nausée, the character named « The autodidact » spends his time at the town library, reading every single book there from A to Z in the catalogue.
! ! # ! ! ! ! !
# (! F F,+ ! !
' ! ( ! ' ! ! ' ! F,J -
# ! ' # !
%! # 0 ! # !* ;( # ! ,B ;(
# ! ! ! ! ! ! ' 0 , ' !
! 8 # 3.<D?6 # ! # # ! ' "
( $ ! ( ' 8 # ! (! !
! ! # ! ) ! ! ! 0
( ' *
" ! 0 / ! ! # ! 0
! ! 0 / ! ! # ! 8 !' ! ,+
( ! ! ! ! ! ' # ! &
( & (! ! ( E# ( / ( ! &
(! ! ( & !
! ! ' ! / # !
'$38 # .<D?*. >6
8 # # # ! ' ( ! # !
& #' ! 7 # D ) '(! ! #
! ' ! # - 0
!# ! ! ' ! # ! !
# ! * 0 # ! ( ' ! !
! # & # 3 ! ' ! ! 6 % ! /
! ! > ! # ( !
8 # ! / ! ! ( ! ! ' # !
! ! ( ! ' ! # #
!
( ! / ! ! # ! !
%! 1 # '*
6 Jackson 2000: 101 notes that the normative constraint clashes with Stalnaker’s account of belief in terms of possible worlds: subjects who believe that P and that if P then Q, but would do not believe Q will be subjects who do not not have a single system of beliefs.
7 See Winters 1979, Engel 1999 for further discussion
8 I shall come back below on this.
" ! ! ! (! ( # ! / ! !
! I ' ! ! !
$31 # .<<. D? 6
@ # ! *
"% ( ! ! # $
3 # 4555*4=. ..? ..=6
) ! # ' / !
!E ## ! - # ' !
! # ! ! # ! ! " 7 $ " / $
! / # # *
"8 ! ! # # # (
## # 2 ! # ! ! ! ! ' !
' ' $3 # 4555*4=46
- # ! ! # '# # ( '
! ( 0 ! ! ! 1 ( ! !
' ' # ( ! !
34555*4=?6 ) ! # ! !
(! ' # ! ' # 0 # *
"1 & ! # " ,$( (! ! 0
E ! ! ! ! ' # E !
! # # ! !
& ! ( ! (! ! # & '
# ' ! ! ( ' (! ! ! #
# $3 # 4555*4=46
! ! (! ! (
% !
! ! ( !3 6 ! ! #
! 3 6 ! # ! # ! # ; G
! ! ! # ' ! ( !
# ' ! ( ! ' #
! ( ! 7 ( ! ' ! # ! !
! 0 9 ' 8 # ; ' ! '* (!
( ! ! #
' ! # # ( (! ! / ! ! !
(! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! !
! '
! ! ' ! ' # ' #
' # ! ! !
# ! 7 9 ! ( ! # ! ( /
( ! ! % ! ( ! # ! !
& (! ! '#
+ ! ! ! # # # ( (! !
! ! # ! (! ! #
! # # #
( ! ! 0 ! ! ! ' ! (! ! ( ! ! 0
# & ! ( ! ! ! # !#
# ' ( ! ! !
*
"C ( ! # 0
! (! ! ! # ' (! ( ;
! ! ( ! # ( ;
! ( ; 0 0 ' (! !
( ! ! ; ; 0 $
3 # 4555*.><6
+ ! ( # ! ! # 0 # 3"G # !
! K L" "G # / 0 # 3 6 (! ! ! !
$6 (! !! # # 3" ( # / 0 # (! ! !
3 ! $6 (! ! 0 # (! !
3 8 / .<<J6 - ! '*
"%! # ! ' #
# / # ! ! ! %! !
! ! # ( ! ! # !
# / ! / '! ! # ! # / # 3 ! 455.*4=>6
%! & ! ! ! # ! #*
"+ ! / ! ! # ! # ! ! 0
! 0 ! %! # ! !
( ' ) ' # ' ! (! !
- ! ' ! - ; '
! ; ! 0 # (! ! ! %!
! $3 ! 455.*4J?6
) ! ' #
! ( # ! / !
0 < M / ! '! ! (
# %! # ! ! &
/ # # ! 3 ! # +7 6 #
! ! # +7 ! #' # !
! ! ( ' (! ! ! * # ' ' # #'
( ( ! 1 ! % ( ! ' ! # !
# ' # ' !' ! ! ( ! ' ! !
' 3 # 4555*4=5 46 )' (! ( ( ! !
! ! ( ! ' # ! ( ( ! 7 !
! / ' # # ! ' ! #
! ) ' # ! # (! ! ! ' & +
# # ! ! ! # (! ! '
( ! ! (! ! 3%! ! ! # ! #
' / ( ! E ! # / ! N 6
! ! # ! # '
# (! ! # ' (! ! # ! 0 #
% ! / # ! 7 ( ! '
! 9 # ' ! ! !# ! !
- ' ! #
! ! # ! (! ! .5 # # ' ' '
9 Here I am much indebted to Owens 2001
10 There is a large literature on the difference between belief and acceptance. It is review in part in Engel (2000)
@ ; ' ! ! - !
# ; ! ; & ' ! '
0 ! ' & ' & ' ' 3 '@
' ..6 ( / 7 0 ! ( / ! (! !
( ! ! 0 & ' ' ! #
! # ' !
! ! ! & ' ! ! & ! ( !
# ' ! ! & # ' ! 1 # # ! ! !
! / ( ! ! # ' # ! !
! ! #
& '(! ! # %! ! # & '
! / ! ! ' ! '3 ! (
( 0 # 6 # ' ! !
! # & ' 0 ! # + ! # ' !
#' #' #' #' ! ( ! #
! ) (!' ! ( ! ( ! #
! ,B ! # ! ! # "
(! ' / ! ! $ # ! ,)
( ! # ! # #
- # ! ! 8 ! (! !
8 ! ' ! # %! ' 0 ! ( !
! # ' 8 # 0 ' (
! # (! ! ! # B ' ( ! (!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ' ! ! ) ! !
! ( ! # ! ! ! ! # ' ' !
# !
- ( / ! ! ( # 8 ' !
( ( ! # !
( ! ! ( ! ( 0 ! )
' ! ! ' ( ' ! '
B ' # / 0 #
11 See e.g. Bernard Williams 1978, Peirce 18
- # ! # ( ! # (! ! .4 ) (
! ! ( '( # ( ! !
#
- ! ! ( ! ! ! ! !
! ! # # + !
# ! ( ! ! !
! # ! ! ! ! ! & (! !
/ ' ! ! 3 # / ! !
- 76 ! '## '! 8 ! ! ' (! ( (! !
! / ! '(! ! # ' ! !
' ! ! ( '*" # ( φ !
$ :' φ ! ! φ ) !
! ! ! 7 " ! ! $ O # ' '
7 ' ' ' # ! 7
' 9 7 #' ( ## )
# ' ' ! # ! 3 %! (!'
/ ! 6 ! ( #'0 #
(! ! / ! ! ' #' (! !#' 0 #
0' #' .? ! ! # ! ! # # !
%! ! ! ( ! ! !
' ( ! ! # ( 8 ! !
' ! ! ! # ! #
! # ! # ) ! # '
( ! ! ! # ! ' ! !
) ! ! ' ( !
"P; $ ' ( # ' !
' ! ! (! # ) ' !
# # ' ' ! ! )
' ! # ! !
# ! 3 ! # 6 ! ! ! & '! !
! ! %! ' # ' ! / ! ! ( ! #
12 I am indebted here to the discussion in Owens 2000 and 2001
13 See Owens 2000, 108-109.
! & ' ) !
# (! # ! # !
& # ' # ' ( ) '
%! ! ' ##
! / ( 0 %! ( '
G ) 0 *
8 ! # / ' !
' 8 ( ' '
! ( Q %! 0 ! ! # '
# / ( 0 0 Q
# 0 ( ! ! ( ' # '
0 ' ! / ! #
0 ( # ( ! '
( ! # ! / ! # 0 ! ! ! (
! # ! '# # ' 0
# ' 0 # 0 ! ! ' '
# 3) 0 .<>=*D >6
%! # ' ( + !
/ ( 0 %! ' !
! ! " $ " # $ & ' M ! ! ! #
0 ! # ( ! - ( ! '
! (! ! & ' ! ! # !
! 0 ! (! ! #
%! ! # I ! ! ! (! ! #
! ' ! (! ! ! ( 0 !
! ! ! '
! ! ! # ! ( ! 0
! C ! C '! / ! 3 6 # ! ! !
& ' 1 ( ! / # # ! (! ! '
/ (,- # ' # ! (! ! - '
! # & ' ! # 3C '.<<=6 # ' 1 3.<>>6 !
! & ' ! ! # ) (! !
( ! ! ! ! !
9 ! ' ! ! " #$ ! ! " #
!$ ! ) ! ! ! ( %! !
# ) ! # & ! !
0 & ! ! # ! ' !
# ( ! ! 0 # !
0 ! # & # % !
( ' '# (! ! - ! # '
' ! ! #
! 0 ! # ! ' ! ( ' &
! ) ! 7 (!' ! !
! # (! ! ! ( / 9 ( ! ! !
( (! ! ,
%! ! ! ' ! # ! ! #
!3 %6 ! ! & %! # & ! # / ( 8 ! (
! ( # / ( # ! ! 9 ( ( # '
8 ( ! # # 0 3+ #' "( ( $
! ! ! ! 6 ! # !
! #' ! %! #' 2 !
! ! 2 #' # / ( , ' %! (!'
# # ! ! ' 'M ; # ' ! / ( !
7 * ! # ( ! # ' (! !
! # ! ! / ( ! C ' ( !
! / ( ! ! - !
! # / ( ! # / (
38 # 4555* D 45>E / .<<<*? 6
%! ! ( # # # / ( *
3 R6 9 ' ! ' ' / (
3 R6 # 3 %6 / ( !
! / ( ! ! 2 ! # 2 ! #
8 !' ! 3 R6 ! ! 3 %6 ! # ! ,%!
( # ) # ! ! '3 %6 '
*(! # #' ( # ! %! /
/ ( (! ! ' # ! ! ! 8 # ; # / (
38 # 4555*?? =6 / ! ! 3 !
! 6 R ( ! # # ( '
" '$ "/ ( $ ) (
! ! ( ! # ! ! ! 0 ! '
( / ( ! ! / ( !
/ ( ! # ' ! ' ! ! ! ! '
# (! ! ! # / (
! ( # ' ! 9 ' !
' ( ! # / ( # / (
# ! ( 38 # 4555* J6 + ! ( # ' ' ! # !
/ ( # ! ! !
(! ! / ( ! %! # / ( 3 R6 !
# # ! ! # !3 %6 .
! ' ! ( ! / ( ! # ! #
' ( ( 0 ) ! ! ! # '
%! 0 # ! ! / ( ! !
! / ( ! ( ' 0
) ! ( ! ! # # !
' / ( #
0 ' ! ! # # 3 / ) 0 !
& 6 ! ! ! 7 ! / ( 9 / (
! ( ! ( ' / ( # 0 (
! ' ' ! .=
14 I therefore agree with Wedgwood (2001) that the normative sense (NT) is the correct specification of the aim of belief. But I disagree with him that this norm is more basic than the norm of knowledge (2001: 289- 90) 15 The objection is well formulated by David 2001: “Although knowledge is certainly no less desirable than true belief, the knowledge-goal is at a disadvantage here because it does not fit into this picture in any helpful manner. Invoking the knowledge-goal would insert the concept of knowledge right into the specification of the goal, which would then no longer provide an independent anchor for understanding epistemic concepts. In particular, any attempt to understand justification relative to the knowledge-goal would invert the explanatory direction and would make the whole approach circular and entirely
unilluminating. After all, knowledge was supposed to be explained in terms of justification and not the other way round. This does not mean that it is wrong in general to talk of knowledge as a goal, nor does it mean that epistemologists do not desire to have knowledge. However, it does mean that it is bad epistemology to invoke the knowledge-goal as part of the theory of knowledge because it is quite useless for theoretical
%! 0 ! / / ( 0 ! #
& ' ! ! ' ( / ( 9 0
' # ( ! ! & ' 1 ! & '#
0 ( / / ( ! & ' ! ! (
/ ( ) ! ( ! (
( / ( .J
%! ( ! 0 ! ( ( ! # # / ( (
! / ( # 0 - ! ' !
/ '8 # / ( ! # / ( # !
( 0 !E # / # # (! !
! ! ( ' % ! ! ( !
( (! ! # # / ( (! !# ! !
/ ( % ! / ( / ( 38 # 4555*
56
*
! 7 # ! ! # ! " # !$ %!
%! # ! ! !
! ' ! ! ! #
! ! / ! # / ( 3 ! ! ! !
# 6 / / ( ! # ( # 3 R6 '
%! ' ! (! ! ! 0 '
I ! # ! %! # 7 !
%! # ! ! & ! !
# (! ! ! & ! ! ! & '
purposes: The knowledge-goal has no theoretical role to play within the theory of knowledge.” (David 2001:
154)
16 Actually some writers, most notably Crispin Sartwell (1992), do not take it to be absurd; on the contary they claim that knowledge is mere true belief on the basis is this argument. For a discussion of Sartwell’s argument, see Ollson 2003. Sartwell’s argument is the product of both maintaining that truth is the aim of inquiry and that knowledge is the aim: given that they have the same aims, it follows that they are the same thing ! One philosopher’s modus tollens is another philosopher’s modus ponens. Olsson shows that there is a reductio of the proposed thesis that knowledge is merely true belief, but that this reductio is not so easy to formulate.
- @ S
! ! 7 # (! # # 0 !
' ! ! ! # ! # ! !
0 ! ' # ! ! '( / )
(! ! ' 3 # '
! #6 ! ( ! ! # ! !3 / ( 6 ! #
( 0 ' %! 7 ! 0
- ) ' (! ! ! ! ' 3 !
' # 6 ! ! # !3 %6 3 R6 !
# 1 ( / ! # ' # # ' C # ';
3.<4D6 ( ! ( / ! " ! $ # # ! "! !$
: ! ( ' ! ( ' # !
/ ( ) ! ) ' ' ! ( ' # !
! # ' ! # ! '
%! ' & ! 7 # 7#
! 7 ' ! ! ( ' ! !
@ ! / # !# %! ) ' ' (! !
! ! 7 ! ' ' #
! ( ! + ! # ' ! # 'C # '
' " ! / # # ( !(! ! ' # #
& $3C # '.<4D 3.<<5*JDE '.<<46
( ! ' ! # '
! # ! ! ) ' ' ' # ( ! ! !
! ! 0 ( ) ' # ' 3.<<>6 ' !
# (! ! " # #$ (! !! #
# ( ! ! ( !
' ' # ! # !
%! # % !3 %6 *- # ' # ! ' #
! / ! ( ! # '
! ! # ' ! 3(! ' ! !
! ! ! ! ' 6
%! 7 ' # ! ! !
( % ' # ( ! ! ! (! ( # !
'! ! 0 ',
! # ! ! # ! G/ ( ! (
( ! ! ( ! ! !
' # ! # % !
%! # M - '3 M-6*- # ' #
! ! ' ! # ! ' #
! ! 0 # / ' ! '
! ! ! ' ' # ! # !
) ! ! 9 ( ! ! (! # !
' # ! # # ! ! ! ! ) '
# ' ! # C # ' ! # '
! ! 7 ' ! ! 8 ! !
# ! ( ! ! ! (! !
! ! 7 ' ! ( ! # " !$ ! ! ! (! !
7# ! ! ( '! ! # ' !
' (! ! C # ' ( ' # 7
+ # ( ! ! ) ' ! #
' # 7 ! ! ' ' !
# ! ! ! ' ! #
' # ( ! ! ( ! ! ! (
! ! ' ! ' ! #
! ( ( ! # / (! ! ! ) ' @ ! / #
# / ( # 3 ! (! '
! 6 #
! ( ! ( # ' # (! ! # # !
# ' ' ( # !
( ' - ' ! ( ! ! ! / ! # @ 9
! ! ( ': ;1 (! '# '
(! # # '! ( ' # ' ' ! ( ! ! !
1 ( ! S T 3 S. S4 Q S 6 !
& # T 3 . 4 Q 6 1 # ' !
(! ! ! ! S %! I ! 7 ' ! # ;
(! ! 3 ω6 ! ' .U !
0 ! # ω ! Ω3 "( $6 & #
# # ! ! ! # *
3 ω6 TΣ λKω3S 6 2 L4
(! λ. Q λ # ! # ω3S 6 ! ! ! S
! ( ω %! ! / ! ! !S ( ! & ' ! λ. Tλ4 T Q Tλ T .V %!
%! # ( ! ( ! (! ! ' ! (
' - @ ! /( # !# ' ! ( ! (
' ! ( # ' & ! '
( ! ! ! # ' ' ! # M-
! # ! %! # 'M 3455? 455? 6 ! ! #
* ! ! ( ! ! !, 1 7 #
G ; 5 > ! ! ! ( /(!
# + ! 7 # 7# ! 7 ; G
7T . 2 7 ! ! ! 7 ! ) *
.376 T .74 (! ! 7 9 .376 T . 2 74 (! ! 7 %! ! 7 376 ; * 376 T 5 > .376 W 5 4 5376 T 5 > 3.74 6 W 5 4 3 . 2 74 6 %! # 7# ' ! ! 5 > 1
! 7 ( ! 7 !
(! ' %! # M ! ( !
. 5! ! ' ! # ! ! '
' # !
' 3.<<>6 ( ' ( ( ! ! ( !
! ! ' ! ' # ' (! !
! ( * 3 ' ! # !
! ! '6 3 ! &
( ! ! ! !
! 6 3 ! ' ' # !
; ' ! ! '
! 6 3 # ( ! #
! ! ! ! ! ! ( ' (! !
' # 6 3 ! ;
# ' ! # ! ! # ! # '
! 6 3(! ( & ' !
' ! ! 6 ( ! ! ! )
(! ' # ! ( ' ' ! ( ! # '( ! ! 7 # '
# # ' (! # # ! ( !
! ) ' ! !0 / ! ! !
#
M 3455? 455? 6 ! ! ( !
8 ! ! ! ) ! & ' ! ! '
' # 5 . %! ! ( 5 D 5 =J
# ! ( 5 <5 5 << ) ! - M
! ' # ! !' ! 2 ! !
!' ! B @ '2 ! ( ' ! 3 #
# 6 # ; 3 #
(! ! ! 5 J? 5 J4 ! ! ' (! ! E ! ! /
! ! ; ! 6 M 0 ! ! !
! ! # ! ! '(
! # ! ! ! ! ! '
1 ( ( ! ! # ! ' ,-
' (! # ( '2 ! # ' ! ' ' ; #
2 ! ( ! ' ) ! ( ' !
! # (! # ( '(! !( ! ! ' !
# M - ' ( ! ! ( ( ' - # M
' ! ! & '(! ! '
! %! " # '$
%! # # ! ! ! ' ( ! ! '
' # ! ) ! &
(! ! ! ( # # & %! # !3 %6
! # ' ! ! / ( ! ' ' ' ! !
# ! # # ! !
' ! ( ! ! & (! ! ( ! #
! H
* Earlier versions of this paper have been read at the University of Konstanz in January 2003, and at the University of Rome Tor Vergata at a conference on knowledge and cognition in May 2003. I thank for their comments and encouragements Arthur Merin, Wolfgang Spohn, Gereon Wolters, Erik Olsson and Simone Gozzano.
C 9 C B
- # .<=> +7 ) /(
) 3.<<56 "8 !' ) ',$! =5 4 <D .5D
) 0 G .<>=" # $ % 1 1 '
) # 4555 " # C & # $ @ ' & ) /( +7 D> <<
@ : 455. "% ! ! # M $ 455. .=. .J<
.<<> "%! # ! : $ G 1 ! " ' ' G
+ B
.<<< " # # ) $ - : 0
( % % ' . .D
4555 ! R ( @ !
455. " % ! #,$ R / M
' B G ?D =.
4554" - # B! ! #
M - 455? "8 ! $#
! *VV((( # ! VX V 5?
455? "%! - # ) $#
! *VV((( # ! VX V 5?
1 3.<>D >>6*"%! @ !9 % !$ ! ' GSSS <D .5>
1 # G .<<4 "@ $) .5. =< >?
/ 9 4555 " # # ' ) $ @ ' & ) /(
+7 .55 ..=
' C .<<4 ! * B # B # '
' .<<> "- # #$ # J= =D= J5?
! 455. ") (! ' ( $ ! #
+ 455? ": # / ( ! " & '$ ! +( @ 455. "@ ! #,$
/ B .<<< % +7 +7 '
C # ' 9 .<4D "% ! '$ @ 1 : B # B # ' .<<5
C ' C .<<= "% !! ! M & '*@ 8 !$ + ( B .<<4 "8 !'R (Y # '% ) $*
GSSS S .JD .>5
.<>? B # B # '
@ A B @ 455. "- $! J. .
=?
: 455. % " ' +7 +7 '
# @ 4555 "+ ! # ) $ " , +7 +7 '
8 / % .<<J "%! 0 # $ . ? <D ..<
455. "% ! # 0 # $, S . J> >?
8 ( C 4554 "%! # ) $ .J 4JD 4<D
8 # ) .<D5 "@ ) $ # B # B # '
.<D?
4554" " '
8 ) .<D< ") ( $" * DJ 4 ? 4=J
Z ( " # : * # #$
# .<<> <. .D? 45?