X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34C7AD0E.1130@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:33:18 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Knowledge and Belief References: <199801222003.PAA23058@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 22 15:33:18 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la rab. zuk. cusku di'e > I'm not sure were talking about the same thing when I say system > and you say truth model. Indeed, I think that by "system" you mean something like a database of what you currently believe, more or less what I call one's belief structure. By "worldview" or "metaphysics", though, I mean something less variable: the means or system of means by which one acquires beliefs. Appropriate values are things like "the hypothetico-deductive method", "deduction from axiom schema S" "divine revelation from god G", "hearsay", "the authority of A", etc. > However, neither of them equal actuality > only approximate it. Doubtless. But what is it that they approximate? Why, "nunfatci". > People at a certain time knew the Sun circled the > earth, and unconsciously adjusted their incoming information to fit > that model. No adjustment needed: the Tychonian and Keplerian models are observationally equivalent (anyhow, both the Earth and the Sun perform ellipses around the center of mass of the system). > So for them, the sun _did_ circle the earth. Whether or not the Sun > actually an observer from our time would agree, seems irrelavent > because we cannot prove it now one way or another. Admittedly, it > makes things much more consistant with current understanding of > psychology to think that the Earth really did circle the Sun, and > they just make a mistake. And this is the difference between a time-dependent worldview, which changes as you learn new things, and a "methodological" worldview which changes only when you accept new *kinds* of evidence. (For example, if I were to become a Christian, my worldview would probably change to accept certain "revealed truths" which I now label either false or of unknown truth value.) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)