Abstract
Let us assume that claims for knowledge are often made which do not amount to claims for perfect or demonstrable knowledge. Let us further assume that when such claims are suspect it is possible to examine them and, subsequently, to declare them sometimes just, sometimes not (roughly in the manner followed in law-courts). Let us call such claims for knowledge claims for imperfect knowledge, and assume that these are sometimes just. The question is, what does imperfect knowledge amount to? How do we demarcate imperfect knowledge from perfect knowledge and from mere conjecture? In what follows I shall criticize the popular theory that imperfect knowledge equals a high degree of rational belief. My own view will be (paragraph 13 below) that imperfect knowledge differs from perfect knowledge only in that it makes allowance for acts of God, so-called.KeywordsRational BeliefPerfect KnowledgeTraditional OpinionImperfect KnowledgeSoft SenseThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
