Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 01:04:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801010604.BAA24309@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: jbdp@cix.compulink.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Julian Pardoe Subject: Re: & (Was Knowledge & Belief) X-To: sbelknap@UIC.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2581 Lines: 52 In-Reply-To: <199712312222.WAA07619@mail-relay.compulink.co.uk> Steven Belknap said: > I suggested the change in thread name because we are being > distracted by the semantics of natlangs Are we? I think that we are being distracted by the philosophical issues of what it means to know. I guess what we tying to is to come up with a (not necessarily consistent) set of meanings for the "to know". We can then assign a Lojban word to each. (Since the Book is out these words may have to be lujvo.) The set of meanings won't be consistent because we're not trying to solve the philosophical problem. If we have overlapping or contradictory meanings in our set that's fine: we're trying to please everybody. Trouble is, the set might be to culturally dependent; we should try and avoid that by covering non-Western concepts of belief. Anyway, Steven: you gave the example of Jane saying "I know that it will snow tomorrow". What does "know" mean here? Even in Lake Woebegone[sp? -- may be I should say "la leik[.] uobegon." -- ahh, it's in the dictionary] or Yakutsk no one can _know_ that it will snow tomorrow. Can "know" mean more than "predict" here? How about "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."? I don't know if the problem of induction is generally considered solved these days, but I consider it solved by what I call the Popper/Pascal approach. We don't know that anything that quantum mechanics might say is true. (We thought we knew things that Newtonian mechanics said until Einstein came along.) However, just as Pascal's argument for belief in God advocates a kind of "fail safe" approach, it is sensible to act /as if/ the sun /will/ rise tomorrow. In that sense I can say I "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow (and that there will be snow on the ground in Yakutsk). We might call it inductive or experiential knowledge. Does lojban have word for this? It doesn't cover Pascal though -- I don't think he really "knows" there is a God -- and I think God knows this. Aha! Another kind of knowledge: omniscient[ial] knowledge zo'o. It this were a newsgroup (why isn't there one -- the Book is out: we need the publicity) I'd suggest moving the discussion to a sci.lojban.philosophy zo'o[*]. -- jP -- [*] I use too many "!"s and some should really be ":-)"s but I thought I'd try attitudinals. I once called a project meeting in the pub and was asked "Is this serious or a joke?" Since I am me it was both. How would I say ? If I said {zo'o zo'onai} would once override the other or would it give the mixed meaning?