Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:59:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801091659.LAA13198@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rob Zook Sender: Lojban list From: Rob Zook Subject: Re: Knowledge and Belief X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199801090725.CAA22756@access5.digex.net> X-UIDL: 80b157864d2d62b937a569e58d8f5d2c Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2165 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:40:21 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - At 02:25 AM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Getting back to that. If I were to say, in the context of a base ball >>game: mi cu djuno lo du'u le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro ba'o renro >>le bolci (given that I translated that right), then I think it makes >>sense. Because, I will have directly observed the catcher catching the >>ball, or attempting to catch the ball, and obviously the catcher would >>do neither of those things, if he/she had not seen the pitcher throw it. >> >>Could not the default value, for x4 almost always be direct observation >>in these cases? If the speaker does not directly observe the event, then >>should not one supply a x4 for djuno to provide their argument as to why >>they know someone else knows something? Especially, given the main goal >>in providing an unambiguous grammer in lojban is to ensure clear >>communication, correct? > >For a Christian who accepts the Bible as a statement of truth by faith, >then for them, "they know that Paul knew that Christ was the Son of God". >There is no direct observation present or implied in the English, and >to Biblical literalists, a claim that faith in God is any less valid an >epistemology than direct observation (which can be flawed in the case >of optical illusions, for example) or mathematical knowledge (which is >depednent on axioms), is blasphemy. Urk. I think I had better not comment on this part, my personal bias will distort any good intensions I may have. >Lojban has to be as usable by mystics as by rationalists in order to be >culturally neutral. The gismu, even more than other Lojban content >words, need to be sufficiently vague that they allow use by people with >alternate cultural mindsets to that of the typical Western-culture >scientific skeptic that has dominated the develeopment of the language. Well, I can understand that. It leaves djuno with the colloqual sense of know: "to regard as true". But that again makes it less clear to me how that seems different from krici. Rob 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