|
|
Below is a poem I wrote about knowledge and belief. Knowledge is axiomatic in nature. I cannot be defied. Belief is hypothetical. It may or may not be true. Please, read it and tell me what you understand from it, and what are your views on the topic.
Knowledge and Belief
"Light can only be seen;
Heat can only be felt;
Sound can only be heard;
Smell can only be smelt.
But there are things that can neither be heard,
Nor be felt, nor smelt nor seen.
Such as is, they can only be known
To exist, and to have been.
What one knows is what one percieves,
And what one believes to be true.
But what one doesn't, does not exist,
Even though it may actually do.
Everything one knows, exists in truth;
But everything one believes in, also does.
For what holds true to ones mind,
Does not affect the rest of us."
| Quote: | Light can only be seen;
Heat can only be felt;
Sound can only be heard;
Smell can only be smelt. |
Each of these can be measured, analytically and objectively, pretty easily with modern day techniques.
The idea that something I haven't experienced in my life doesn't exist is absurd as well. What you've basically said is that history of 100+ years ago didn't happen because nobody experienced it (with the exception of the possible minority of people who are old enough to have experienced things over 100 years ago). Whether I personally experienced it/"know" it is irrelevant. It still happened regardless.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Light can only be seen;
Heat can only be felt;
Sound can only be heard;
Smell can only be smelt. |
Each of these can be measured, analytically and objectively, pretty easily with modern day techniques. |
Measuring light, heat, sound and smell is besides the point. What is important is that it is percievable.
| Quote: | | The idea that something I haven't experienced in my life doesn't exist is absurd as well. What you've basically said is that history of 100+ years ago didn't happen because nobody experienced it (with the exception of the possible minority of people who are old enough to have experienced things over 100 years ago). Whether I personally experienced it/"know" it is irrelevant. It still happened regardless. |
You have interpreted the poem wrongly! What the poem says is that knowledge is axiomatic and belief is hypothetical but only what we know and what we believe in only holds true to our minds. Therefore such things do exist (in our minds). Other people may not hold to our beliefs. Therefore the same things that exist for us may not exist for them. Some things do actually exist, but they do not exist for us until we know or believe that they exist. Some things do not exist at all, but if we believe that they do, then they really do exist (in our minds). In fact everything that exists is information (or knowledge) in our minds. So everything that exists for anybody is basically information regardless of whether it actually exists or not.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | You have interpreted the poem wrongly! What the poem says is that knowledge is axiomatic and belief is hypothetical but only what we know and what we believe in only holds true to our minds. |
Hmm...since you seem to base your thought around this central dichotomy (knowledge is axiomatic, faith is hypothetical) it seems to me that you are building an argument around a false premise.
Knowledge is NOT necessarily axiomatic. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident. Much knowledge - certainly when considering the 'natural world' - is NOT axiomatic, it is the result of deduction based on evidence, subjected to test in order to falsify....
When we say that a person "knows" that something is true, there is an emphasis on the fact that the information in reference is undeniable the truth and nothing else but the truth. Therefore knowledge cannot be questioned. If you say that knowledge may or may not be true, then it is not knowledge. It is belief.
When you make deductions based on evidence, there is a possibility that the deductions or the evidence itself may be false. Thus the deductions are in effect beliefs until they are proven beyond any doubt to hold true. Only then can they be classified as knowledge.
Thus knowledge is axiomatic and belief is hypothetical.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | When you make deductions based on evidence, there is a possibility that the deductions or the evidence itself may be false. Thus the deductions are in effect beliefs until they are proven beyond any doubt to hold true. Only then can they be classified as knowledge. |
Not true at all. You can't really prove any inductive statement beyond doubt, outside a closed logic such as maths (see Hume, Popper, the problem of Induction).
Thus, by your definition, the only knowledge that exists are tautological statements in mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
If you consider a generalised statement or presupposition that of a sequence of events in the future necessarily occuring as it always has in the past, the basis of the statement is purely based on evidence which yet may or may not be true or complete, now or in the future. Thus they still fall under the category of belief.
Therefore the following statements are definitely beliefs:
| Quote: | | all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white |
| Quote: | | the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold |
Err...there is little point in simply parroting from the link I provided. I think you can assume that I have already read it and know what it says.
Why not answer the point instead?
Give me some examples of knowledge (statements that ARE proved beyond doubt). Unless you can do that then the whole discussion is moot.
Asking me to give you examples of "statements that ARE proved beyond doubt" just shows that you have no arguments left to counter mine. Any statement that describes a scene or situation in its totality in the present instance, fits the description of the statement you seek. Here are a few examples:
| Quote: | | 1. The Taj Mahal is a monument located in India. |
| Quote: | | 2. Barack Obama is the current the President of the United States of America. |
| Quote: | | 3. Asia is currently the world's biggest continent. |
In my mind, Obama isn't the current President of the US.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | Asking me to give you examples of "statements that ARE proved beyond doubt" just shows that you have no arguments left to counter mine. |
Au Contraire...
| Quote: | | Any statement that describes a scene or situation in its totality in the present instance, fits the description of the statement you seek. |
There is no such statement - there is your problem
| Quote: | | 1. The Taj Mahal is a monument located in India. |
Nope - it is a curry house on the main street in Frodsham where I live...
| Quote: | | 2. Barack Obama is the current the President of the United States of America. |
Nope. Due to a counting error that only I know about, Obama actually lost the key states of California and Texas and lost the election. The fact that everyone BELIEVES he is president is merely a mass delusion.
| Quote: | | 3. Asia is currently the world's biggest continent. |
Asia is an 80s pop band.
Now, OK, you might think I am simply being silly but not so. None of the statements above are 'proved beyond doubt' because they are all constructs which are in themselves tautologies. You see, when you make statements like | Quote: | | When we say that a person "knows" that something is true, there is an emphasis on the fact that the information in reference is undeniable the truth and nothing else but the truth. Therefore knowledge cannot be questioned. If you say that knowledge may or may not be true, then it is not knowledge. It is belief. |
then you are on VERY dodgy ground.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Gael_Knightley wrote: | | Asking me to give you examples of "statements that ARE proved beyond doubt" just shows that you have no arguments left to counter mine. |
Au Contraire...
| Quote: | | Any statement that describes a scene or situation in its totality in the present instance, fits the description of the statement you seek. |
There is no such statement - there is your problem
| Quote: | | 1. The Taj Mahal is a monument located in India. |
Nope - it is a curry house on the main street in Frodsham where I live...
| Quote: | | 2. Barack Obama is the current the President of the United States of America. |
Nope. Due to a counting error that only I know about, Obama actually lost the key states of California and Texas and lost the election. The fact that everyone BELIEVES he is president is merely a mass delusion.
| Quote: | | 3. Asia is currently the world's biggest continent. |
Asia is an 80s pop band.
Now, OK, you might think I am simply being silly but not so. None of the statements above are 'proved beyond doubt' because they are all constructs which are in themselves tautologies. You see, when you make statements like | Quote: | | When we say that a person "knows" that something is true, there is an emphasis on the fact that the information in reference is undeniable the truth and nothing else but the truth. Therefore knowledge cannot be questioned. If you say that knowledge may or may not be true, then it is not knowledge. It is belief. |
then you are on VERY dodgy ground. |
This was quite a different kind of posting by you  1. Everyone knows exactly what she was talking about when she mentioned the Taj Mahal, 2. We also saw Barack Obama sworn in as President ... whether he lost key States is moot he's President ... 3. Asia is the largest continent - general knowledge - not a belief but geographic fact ....
| Quote: | | 1. Everyone knows exactly what she was talking about when she mentioned the Taj Mahal, 2. We also saw Barack Obama sworn in as President ... whether he lost key States is moot he's President ... 3. Asia is the largest continent - general knowledge - not a belief but geographic fact .... |
1) Does that make my 'knowledge' incorrect? I also challenge the statement that 'everyone knows'. If I went into my home town and asked 10 people at random what the Taj Mahal was, I'm willing to place a large bet that most would say 'the curry house on Main street'.
2) We all saw Neil Armstrong walk on the moon - yet there is a sizeable group of people who think it was a hoax.
3) Asia is the largest continent because we say it is. It is a construct - there is nothing 'physical' which says - this group of countries are called 'Asia'. In other words it is 'received wisdom' and could be regarded as a shared belief. Now, if we adopt a common definition of a continent as a 'large, continuous, discrete masses of land' then there is no such thing as Europe or Asia - we get Eurasia...
As I said before I am not trying to be silly - just trying to point out that the dichotomy between knowledge and belief is not as clear-cut as suggested, and the characterisation of knowledge as 'axiomatic' and belief as 'hypothetical' doesn't work. Is it 'a self evident truth' that Asia is the largest continent? If an alien landed on earth, would it be obvious that there were geo-political groupings called 'continents' and that Asia was the largest of those groupings?
How many planets are there in the solar system? 8 or 9? A few years ago we 'knew' it was 9. Now we 'know' it is 8. Was our 'knowledge' that there are 9 planets axiomatic? Is our knowledge that there are 8 planets axiomatic? An axiom is | Quote: | | A self-evident and necessary truth; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted |
If you want a more seriously framed objection then, OK, here it is:
Knowledge can be defined in various ways. One definition (Oxford English Dictionary) is | Quote: | | expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education |
Note the 'through experience'. If you gain knowledge through experience is that axiomatic?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Asking me to give you examples of "statements that ARE proved beyond doubt" just shows that you have no arguments left to counter mine. |
Au Contraire... |
Well, if you mean to say that you do have arguments to counter mine, then just put forth your arguments and let us carry on with the debate.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Any statement that describes a scene or situation in its totality in the present instance, fits the description of the statement you seek. |
There is no such statement - there is your problem |
As a matter of fact, I did provide you with three such statements.
The first statement described the Taj Mahal as being a monument, located in India, which makes complete sense and also holds true. The use of the word "is" indicates the present instance. Thus it perfectly fits the given description.
The second statement tells us that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, which is true. The use of the word "current", shows that it only holds true for a certain time period.
The third statement is, as you can fairly well see, similar to the second. So I hope that I do not have to explain that to you too!
| Quote: | Now, OK, you might think I am simply being silly but not so. None of the statements above are 'proved beyond doubt' because they are all constructs which are in themselves tautologies. You see, when you make statements like
| Quote: | | When we say that a person "knows" that something is true, there is an emphasis on the fact that the information in reference is undeniable the truth and nothing else but the truth. Therefore knowledge cannot be questioned. If you say that knowledge may or may not be true, then it is not knowledge. It is belief. |
then you are on VERY dodgy ground. |
Well, let us be clear on this point:
You believe that the Taj Mahal is not a monument located in India, that Barack Obama is not the current President of the United States of America and that Asia is not currently the world's biggest continent. Belief may or may not be true.
| Quote: | | You have interpreted the poem wrongly! What the poem says is that knowledge is axiomatic and belief is hypothetical but only what we know and what we believe in only holds true to our minds. Therefore such things do exist (in our minds). Other people may not hold to our beliefs. Therefore the same things that exist for us may not exist for them. Some things do actually exist, but they do not exist for us until we know or believe that they exist. Some things do not exist at all, but if we believe that they do, then they really do exist (in our minds). In fact everything that exists is information (or knowledge) in our minds. So everything that exists for anybody is basically information regardless of whether it actually exists or not. |
From the above quote, "Some things do actually exist, but they do not exist for us until we know or believe that they exist". In the same way, the Taj Mahal is a monument located in India, Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America and Asia is currently the world's largest continent. You may or may not believe it. If you do not believe it, your belief is false, since it is known that the statements are perfectly true, and I do know a person who does support me: deanhills.
| Quote: | 1) Does that make my 'knowledge' incorrect?
2) We all saw Neil Armstrong walk on the moon - yet there is a sizeable group of people who think it was a hoax.
3) Asia is the largest continent because we say it is. It is a construct - there is nothing 'physical' which says - this group of countries are called 'Asia'. In other words it is 'received wisdom' and could be regarded as a shared belief.... |
1) Firstly, you do not "know" about it, you "believe" in it.
2) About Neil Armstrong - those who think it was a hoax, believe that it was not true, and there is concrete evidence of their belief being false.
3) Asia is a pre-defined geographical area. There are "physical" documents which list the countries which are included in Asia. It has been physically measured and its area has been compared to the other continents. It has been proven to be the largest continent at present. So if you believe that it is "shared belief", then your belief is false.
| Quote: | | How many planets are there in the solar system? 8 or 9? A few years ago we 'knew' it was 9. Now we 'know' it is 8. Was our 'knowledge' that there are 9 planets axiomatic? Is our knowledge that thee are 8 planets axiomatic? |
| Quote: | | If you consider a generalised statement or presupposition that of a sequence of events in the future necessarily occuring as it always has in the past, the basis of the statement is purely based on evidence which yet may or may not be true or complete, now or in the future. Thus they still fall under the category of belief. |
When one says that there are a certain number of planets in the solar system, based on what he knows but not on what he does not know, it is a belief because the evidence need not necessarily be true or complete. The statement you provided me is similar to the statement of the swans, that you provided me earlier in the link. So it is void.
I amended my previous posting as you were typing this reply - most of your objections are dealt with in the amended version.
Let's deal with your other points | Quote: | | When one says that there are a certain number of planets in the solar system, based on what he knows but not on what he does not know, it is a belief because the evidence need not necessarily be true or complete. |
The evidence is NEVER complete. That is the point. This is recognised in science - we do not try to prove something, we try to disprove it.
| Quote: | | You believe that the Taj Mahal is not a monument located in India, that Barack Obama is not the current President of the United States of America and that Asia is not currently the world's biggest continent. Belief may or may not be true. |
Nope - I KNOW that the Taj Mahal is a curry house - I said nothing about it not being a monument in India. Your description was incomplete - there is no 'THE' - there are many. Therefore, using your own definition of knowledge :-
| Quote: | | Any statement that describes a scene or situation in its totality in the present instance |
your statement was not knowledge because it was incomplete.
I also KNOW that Asia is not the largest continent - EurAsia is. Once again your statement is not 'complete' and, therefore according to your own definition it is a belief....
| Quote: | 1) Does that make my 'knowledge' incorrect? I also challenge the statement that 'everyone knows'. If I went into my home town and asked 10 people at random what the Taj Mahal was, I'm willing to place a large bet that most would say 'the curry house on Main street'.
2) We all saw Neil Armstrong walk on the moon - yet there is a sizeable group of people who think it was a hoax.
3) Asia is the largest continent because we say it is. It is a construct - there is nothing 'physical' which says - this group of countries are called 'Asia'. In other words it is 'received wisdom' and could be regarded as a shared belief. Now, if we adopt a common definition of a continent as a 'large, continuous, discrete masses of land' then there is no such thing as Europe or Asia - we get Eurasia... |
1) Well I am quite sure that you know that the "Taj Mahal" is a monument in India, and so would all the "10 random people" whom you would ask what the Taj Mahal is. However, if you just randomly ask them, what the Taj Mahal is, they would probably think that you already know about the monument in India, but you wanted to know what the "curry house on the Main street" with the same name as the monument is. If you would mention "monument", I am sure that they would refer you to India. Therefore the following conversation is pretty pointless, considering that you are only trying to act cheeky:
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 1. The Taj Mahal is a monument located in India. |
Nope - it is a curry house on the main street in Frodsham where I live... |
3)Asia is the biggest continent! Eurasia may be considered a continent by definition. However, in practice it is not really considered to be a continent. Besides, by your definition even Eurasia is not the biggest continent. Afro-Eurasia is bigger. I recall you stating earlier:
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 3. Asia is currently the world's biggest continent. |
Asia is an 80s pop band. |
Why didn't you mention Eurasia then? An 80s pop band definitely does not fit into the picture!
| Quote: | | The evidence is NEVER complete. That is the point. This is recognised in science - we do not try to prove something, we try to disprove it. |
Science has proved more often than it has disproved. Albert Einstein proved that energy and matter are interchangable. Tell me how his evidence for the same is not complete.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education |
Note the 'through experience'. If you gain knowledge through experience is that axiomatic? |
We know everything we know through experience! Experience does not limit itself to practicing a skill. Everything in life is an experience: reading, learning, conversing, etc. What information you gain from it can either be knowledge or belief. The statement you quoted refers to an "expertise" or "skill", which is basically knowledge. So it basically translates as "knowledge acquired by a person through experience or education". Many a times people describe something as the thing itself. For example:
| Quote: | | 1. The Earth is geoid in shape. "Geoid" means Earth-shaped. |
| Quote: | | 2. Hydrogen sulphide gas has a rotten egg smell. When you break rotten eggs, Hydrogen sulphide gas is released. |
| Quote: | | 3. Sulphur dioxide has the smell of burnt Sulphur. When you burn Sulphur, Sulphur dioxide is released. |
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | Therefore the following conversation is pretty pointless, considering that you are only trying to act cheeky. |
I am not being cheeky - I am pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic. | Quote: | | Eurasia may be considered a continent by definition. However, in practice it is not really considered to be a continent. Besides, by your definition even Eurasia is not the biggest continent. Afro-Eurasia is bigger. |
Precisely my point - your original statement was either incorrect or incomplete - by your definition that makes it a belief, not knowledge.
| Quote: | | Science has proved more often than it has disproved. Albert Einstein proved that energy and matter are interchangable. Tell me how his evidence is not complete. |
I could, but I would have to give you a long physics lesson first. Suffice it to say that relativistic theory breaks down as we get to the quantum level. Combining quantum theory with relativity is still very much work in progress. As regards mass - we don't yet know what mass is. There are various hypothesese - the most promising at the moment is probably the Higgs Field hypothesis.
You are basically confusing maths and science - science does NOT prove things (once again you need to go back to the problem of Induction), it disproves hypothesis. Proof is reserved for maths, you can never prove a scientific hypothesis.
Alright, so do you agree that the Taj Mahal problem is sorted out?
I accept the fact that the statement about Asia was incomplete. It should have been as follows:
Asia is currently the world's largest traditional continent.
| Quote: | | The evidence is NEVER complete. That is the point. This is recognised in science - we do not try to prove something, we try to disprove it. |
Here, I do not agree on the fact that evidence is NEVER complete. If that was the case, then court judgements would be based on impractical hypotheses. The pont is, statements based on evidences may not always be true. So they cannot be considered knowledge unless it is proven beyond doubt to be true.
When you know something, there is an emphasis on the element of truth. However, when you believe in something, there is an element of uncertainty. So let us reconstruct the foundation statement as:
Knowledge is static, but belief is dynamic.
This is because different people can have different beliefs about the same topic.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | I accept the fact that the statement about Asia was incomplete. It should have been as follows:
Asia is currently the world's largest traditional continent. |
Still doesn't work - you would have to define 'traditional' because that word is ambiguous....
| Quote: | | Here, I do not agree on the fact that evidence is NEVER complete. If that was the case, then court judgements would be based on impractical hypotheses. The pont is, statements based on evidences may not always be true. So they cannot be considered knowledge unless it is proven beyond doubt to be true. |
Whether you agree or not is not really important - it is true anyway.
Court Judgements are proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' NOT proved beyond ANY doubt.
As I said, evidence is NEVER complete. You can always gather more evidence which might support your theory, but you can never gather ALL evidence because that is an indeterminate quantity. Therefore there is always the possibility that the evidence to refute your theory exists but has not yet been discovered. All scientists know this which is why we use the words theory and hypothesis but NOT truth and fact.
Take a simple example - Newton's laws of motion. If you know them you have knowledge (presumably?). Do the laws work? - yes, for most things. Are they 'true'? No.
Let me give you a simple illustration to 'prove' my point.
I can hypothesise that everything we perceive is actually virtual reality on a cosmic scale - we are all just software running on a hyper-computer simulation. (OK - simple version - the Matrix).
Now, can you 'prove' this is incorrect? If it IS correct then everything you think you know is actually untrue - your 'knowledge' is contingent on this hypothesis being false, but you can't refute the hypothesis so ALL knowledge is suspect.......
| Quote: | When you know something, there is an emphasis on the element of truth. However, when you believe in something, there is an element of uncertainty. So let us reconstruct the foundation statement as:
Knowledge is static, but belief is dynamic.
This is because different people can have different beliefs about the same topic. |
No - that doesn't work either. Knowledge is VERY dynamic - ask a physicist. Belief is often static - ask a creationist.
| Quote: | | Quote: | I accept the fact that the statement about Asia was incomplete. It should have been as follows:
Asia is currently the world's largest traditional continent. |
Still doesn't work - you would have to define 'traditional' because that word is ambiguous.... |
Alright, a traditional continent is one of these seven continents: Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, Australia and Antarctica. It cannot be subdivided to form a smaller continent.
| Quote: | Whether you agree or not is not really important - it is true anyway.
Court Judgements are proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' NOT proved beyond ANY doubt.
As I said, evidence is NEVER complete. You can always gather more evidence which might support your theory, but you can never gather ALL evidence because that is an indeterminate quantity. Therefore there is always the possibility that the evidence to refute your theory exists but has not yet been discovered. All scientists know this which is why we use the words theory and hypothesis but NOT truth and fact.
Take a simple example - Newton's laws of motion. If you know them you have knowledge (presumably?). Do the laws work? - yes, for most things. Are they 'true'? No. |
If evidence is NEVER complete, then anything based on evidence is uncertain. That makes them beliefs. So basically all scientific theories are beliefs! It depends from person to person, to accept them or not.
| Quote: | | No - that doesn't work either. Knowledge is VERY dynamic - ask a physicist. Belief is often static - ask a creationist. |
Knowledge cannot be dynamic since truth cannot change, and knowledge is based on the truth! The truth may only hold true under certain circumstances, and the circumstances may change over time. However, knowledge does not change with change in circumstances. With change in circumstances, more knowledge (based on truth affected by the new circumstances) can be discovered. Knowledge is specific, and so it is static.
Belief is dynamic. You cannot use the words "often" and "static" together, as that implies that the object in reference is in effect dynamic. If you say that something is static, it means that it never changes.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | If evidence is NEVER complete, then anything based on evidence is uncertain. That makes them beliefs. So basically all scientific theories are beliefs! It depends from person to person, to accept them or not. |
Yep quite right (if you accept YOUR definitions of knowledge and belief, which I don't). It should be apparent, however, that not all beliefs are equal (even under your definitions). Some 'beliefs' (ie scientific 'beliefs') are as close to fact as makes no odds.
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | Knowledge cannot be dynamic since truth cannot change, and knowledge is based on the truth! The truth may only hold true under certain circumstances, and the circumstances may change over time. However, knowledge does not change with change in circumstances. With change in circumstances, more knowledge (based on truth affected by the new circumstances) can be discovered. Knowledge is specific, and so it is static. |
Nope. In the 19th century it was KNOWN that the atom looks like a mini solar-system with electrons wizzing round a central nucleus. We now KNOW that this model is wrong. Our knowledge has changed (evolved?).
If truth 'may only hold true under certain circumstances' then it follows that it is untrue in other circumstances (basic logic).
Truth is a slippery concept which doesn't really have a place in science. Arguably there is no such thing....
| Gael_Knightley wrote: | | Belief is dynamic. You cannot use the words "often" and "static" together, as that implies that the object in reference is in effect dynamic. |
Untrue again. I know many creationists who believe in the literal account of Genesis. Their belief is not subject to change - it is static. The reason I use 'often' is because you are trying to generalise in an inappropriate way. You cannot say all beliefs are either dynamic or static. You also need to separate 'belief' as an entity, from the believer as an entity. | Gael_Knightley wrote: | | If you say that something is static, it means that it never changes. |
No it doesn't - look it up.
If you really want a philosophical discussion on knowledge then I will be happy to oblige - at the moment this is just thrashing around the topic without actually addressing the interesting stuff. Knowledge is not philosophically defined, but we could start with Plato and work through from there:
According to Plato in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed.
Now, here immediately is a problem with your dichotomy - Plato sees belief as part of knowledge...
We could go on to consider objections to this from philosophers such as Kirkham and Wittgenstein...
|
