Sentence examples for knowledge of propositions from inspiring English sources

Nothing is more natural for modern philosophers than to contrast knowledge of objects (knowledge by acquaintance or objectual knowledge; French connaître) with knowledge of how to do things (technique knowledge), and with knowledge of propositions or facts (propositional knowledge; French savoir).

In brief, Hintikka/Kripke style knowledge is knowledge of propositions, but justification terms justify sentences.

Thus, while intuitive knowledge and derivative knowledge both involve knowledge of propositions (or truths), knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description both involve knowledge of things (or objects).

A priori justification and knowledge of propositions such as, "In Sheep, you don't know that there are sheep in the field", don't imply that there are sheep, fields, etc.

To advance beyond foundations we will inevitably need to employ non-deductive reasoning and according to PIJ that will ultimately require us to have noninferential (direct) knowledge of propositions describing probability connections between evidence and conclusions.

The first type is knowledge of self-evident propositions (propositions per se notae)—such as 'a whole is greater than its parts' as well as knowledge of propositions derived syllogistically from them.

One might think that an immediate corollary to Gilbert's definition is that Gilbert-common knowledge implies the hierarchical common knowledge of Proposition 2.5.

It will not be enough for him to establish that we can have knowledge of some propositions without demonstrating them: unless it is in turn possible to deduce all the other propositions of a science from them, we shall not have solved the regress problem.

However, in typical recent exponents of "tacit agreement" and conventionalist views, such as Boghossian (1997), the claim that logical truths do not express propositions is rejected, and it is accepted that the existence of the agreement provides full-blown a priori knowledge of those propositions.

a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions, empiricists would say, is not possible.

As far as our knowledge of causal propositions is concerned, we can again draw a distinction.