ABSTRACT
People are now in a position to attack the problem of justifying and vetoing know statements; and although my decision analysis of knowing has already given us some fairly obvious clues here, it is first necessary to see why it is that some current philosophical theories on this issue are unsatisfactory. People understand that according to certain philosophers rules we were not entitled to use know as we did. The paradox involved in analysing a know frame of mind with a future reference into a believe frame of mind a paradox which is heightened by Austin's new plunge view of knowing is brought out even more clearly when we turn to the chemist. There are, however, many shadowy areas of discourse where emotions are deeply involved and where decisions clash strongly-and here people find it difficult to talk of dominant decisions at all.
