Date:  Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:56:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712260456.XAA15887@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: djuno and ce'u
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 3997
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 25 23:56:57 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>Maybe "know" as well as "believe" requires some empathy, or at least

>communication from the referent.

>

>I cannot accept that djuno, without a place for the speaker, can have
any

>reference to the speaker's concept of what is truth.

>

>It has to be with reference to x1's concept of truth to the extent
that the

>speaker understands it.

>

>>> That is not the difference between the Lojban words.  Lojban first
of all

>>> distinguishes between facts and truths.  Only fatci is factive.

>>

>>Mere assertion....

>

>Mere assertion.  pc and I hammered this one out, and put in fatci

>specifically for the poissibility of claiming atruth that is
independent of

>epistemology, should there be any such thing %^).

>

>The definition of fatci in the gismu list says "truth in the
absolute"

>whereas jetnu  (and djuno) are truths according to some

> epistemology/metaphysics.


AHD defines=20

<bold><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</para=
m><bigger><bigger>be*lieve
</bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</=
param><bigger>(b</bigger></fontfamily><bigger><fontfamily><param>American_He=
ritage_A</param>=BE</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>-l</font=
family><fontfamily><param>American_Heritage_A</param>T</fontfamily><fontfami=
ly><param>Helvetica</param>v</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>American_Heritag=
e_A</param>2</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>)
<italic>v.
</italic><bold><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</param><bigger>be*lieved
be*liev*ing be*lieves </bigger></color></bold><italic>v. tr.
</italic><bold>1. </bold>To accept as true or real: <italic>Do you
believe the news stories? </italic><bold>2. </bold>To credit with
veracity: <italic>I believe you. </italic><bold>3. </bold>To expect or
suppose; think: <italic>I believe they will arrive shortly. v. intr.
</italic><bold>1. </bold>To have firm faith, especially religious
faith. <bold>2. </bold>To have faith, confidence, or trust: <italic>I
believe in your ability to solve the problem. </italic><bold>3.
</bold>To have confidence in the truth or value of something:
<italic>We believe in free speech. </italic><bold>4. </bold>To have an
opinion; think: <italic>They have already left, I believe.=20


</italic></fontfamily></bigger>Thus, to believe is to accept as true or
real, possibly without proof. If you want to say believe in lojban,
then the gloss would be


"assert as true that which is possibly, but is not necessarily
uncertain"


The idea of "truth" is problematic. There is no problem in Mathematics
or Zoroastrian (Aristotlean) logic, as these are constructed things,
not necessarily applicable to extent reality. "Truth" also works fine
when asserted ex cathedra or via whatever eldritch legitimizer is au
courant in your culture. Truth is thus a construct of explicitly
constructed, religious, or other authoritatively asserted world views.
(A delusion shared by enough persons becomes truth. Accepting the truth
is then a useful way to avoid beheading or social ostracization.) In
its highest and best form, "truth" is specific as to prohibitions on
the removal of facial hair, or as to the necessity of the piercing of
body parts or genital mutilation (i.e. circumcision).


Some philosophical views of science suggest that a hypothesis can not
be proved true by experiment, although it can be proved false.
Hypotheses currently found to be useful for some purpose, (social,
medical, engineering, or philosophical),  are classified as "yet
unproven", the degree of certainty then being expressed in terms of the
rigor of the attempts to date to disprove the hypothesis.


The lojban <<fatci> is very close to the English "fatuous" or "fat
chance" to the ear of this American English speaking person. This seems
apt. Perhaps this is one place with <<jei> would be handy.

Steven Belknap, M.D.

Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria