Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:52:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712312052.PAA11548@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rob Zook Sender: Lojban list From: Rob Zook Subject: Re: Knowledge & Belief X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2222 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 31 15:52:09 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 10:23 AM 12/31/97 -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote: >At 1997-12-31 09:13, Steven Belknap wrote: > >>>kei fo da> >> >>"Steven knows that Jorge knows that Lojbab goes to the store." >> >>The above statement is always false, which considerably limits its utility. >>I am asserting that it is not possible to directly know that some else >>knows something. > >Are you drawing a distinction between 'know' and 'directly know'? It what >sense is it not possible to know that someone else knows something, but >it is possible to know that someone else does something? Bear in mind >that in both cases, 'knowledge' is mediated through imperfect senses. ko ga'inai fraxu mi le porpi fau tavla Given that this thread appears to have an epistemological context, then one cannot know another person "knowing" anything. One only knows Jane Bloe's said that she knows something. Simply because she knows something - her telling you so does not automatically transfer said knowledge into your mind. If Jane says to me, "I know that it will snow tomorrow", I know she said something to me, I directly observed said event. However, I do not know that the snow will fall on her head tomorrow. I can say, "I know that it will snow tomorrow because I have done the necessary meteorological research necessary to determine this, and so I agree with Jane". But her saying she knows does not make me know it also. >In any case, your definition of 'know' is at variance with the standard >one, with which it certainly is possible to "know" that someone knows >something. Go ask anyone on the street. In epistemology, "know" has a more specific meaning than casual use of the word, although they seem _very_ similar. The epistemological use involves justified true belief. A belief is not justified if you do not have empirical testing of it, or sufficient logical arguments to back it up. Admittedly, there does seem to exists dispute on what "justified" refers to specifically. Rob "la valsi nanla" Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx