Re: questions on assertion

To assert something is, according to a previous post "to state something as
if it were true."
Regardless of your own state of belief, it follows from the fact that you
have asserted something that you wish the reader to believe  that it is true
(i.e. to act as if it were true). In a legal context, therefore, you can be
rightfully accused of lying, misleading people etc. . . I think this is the
aspect which is important to trust applications.

> > > The notion of assertion is much simpler and more fundamental than
> > > that of belief. In the context of software agents, one can argue
> > > whether there are any beliefs involved at all, but making an
> > I don't agree here. I think what you are saying is circular.
> > What is a "statement that something is true" if it does not contain
> some
> > notion of belief. I am not getting philosophical here, I am talking
> about
> > from the bottom up to support this kind of commitment. At the moment,
> it
> > seems that the semantics is too confused to do this.
> I don't understand what you are confused about.  Asserting something and
> believing it are two different things.  How could it be any other way?

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 08:11:46 UTC