Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 06:38:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712241138.GAA25467@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: djuno and ce'u X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3615 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 24 06:38:48 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >> This is not even true for English. To be seasonal, many people "know" > >> that "Christ was born on Christmas Day", even though there is > >> considerable evidence even in the scriptural accounts that suggest > >> otherwise. The scholars who interpret otherwise, and who know the > >> history of the association of Christmas with Dec. 25, "know" that Christ > >> was NOT born on Christmas Day. > > > >I don't see how you are trying to make your point. By using > >scarequotes you are implicitly attributing the belief in the > >truth of the knowee to the knower rather than yourself. > > I am not sure that I understand your point. A claim that X knows > Y says nothing about I think/believe/know unless I am X IN LOJBAN. That's what I dispute, for reasons already given. I am making a descriptive observation based on the prescription and on usage. However, I accept John's formulation that x2 of djuno is judged by the speaker to be true in worlds in which the x4 (metaphysics) obtains. > In English we seldom make statements about knowledge where the > speaker might have reason to dispute the truth of the "known". That's because if we don't think it true then we don't call it knowledge. It's belief. > However, since Lojban recognizes multiple epistemologies as valid > for truth and knowledge, Lojban does not abide by the English > convention. Thus, for Lojban, I can say that the Pope djuno ledu'u > Mary was born via Immaculate Conception fo Catholic dogma even > though I as a non-Catholic, do not subscribe to that epistemology > as granting ME knowledge. OK. I go along with this. > krici would not be the optimal choice since it implies no epistemological basis > for the belief. > >If you tell me that you find > > > > He knows that Christ was born on Christmas Day and she knows that > > Christ was born on Christmas day. > > > >acceptable, then I will not believe you. > > I fail to see a reason why it would not be acceptable. That's because in my haste I left out "not"! It should be: > > He knows that Christ was born on Christmas Day and she knows that > > Christ was NOT born on Christmas day. > Last week, I would > have easily said that I am most other people know that teleportation is > impossible. But then I read of the experiments that demonstrated quantum > teleportation, so I now know differently than before. So to many other people > now know differently. Buit those who have not been exposed to this new > information, know something else. yOU'RE using "know" in an empathetic way, using a rhetorical device of subjectivity, where the speaker assumes the identity of someone spoken about. > >> I am not sure what you mean. We have "krici" for believe, which is > >> identical in the first 3 places to djuno, but requires no > >> epistemological place, because no epistemologically based evidence is > >> required for belief. > > > >It may be that no epistemologically based evidence is required for > >{krici}. But it is required for belief. > >The difference between the words _know_ and _believe_ is that only > >the former is "factive": only it presupposes the truth of the > >complement. > > That is not the difference between the Lojban words. Lojban first of all > distinguishes between facts and truths. Only fatci is factive. Mere assertion.... > >We can start a discussion on truth and cognition, but it's not > >pertinent to what has been discussed so far. > > I'm saying nothing about truth and cognition - I am explaining what the > Lojban words are prescribed to mean. Show me that prescription. &. p.s. Happy Crimbo & New Year.