Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 03:38:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801020838.DAA25346@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Pycyn Sender: Lojban list From: Pycyn Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Jove's wife has lint X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1443 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 2 03:38:57 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU If we fuzzify [djuno], the fuzz filters down, needs be accounted for by fuzz in the underlying situation. Which or both get fuzzified: truth or justification? Fuzzying truth in this case (however it affects other cases) is a bad plan, since it erases the distinction between knowledge and reasonable but wrong beliefs (and so does away with the need for [djuno], here taken as a given). So, presumably it is justification that gets fuzzy, which does make sense. Justification is already a matter of more or less and of (arbitrary?) limines. The only question left is whether the fuzz is against an absolute standard (e.g. mathematics) or the limen at hand. The first seems more natural but leaves out the question of how good is good enough. That is, is "justified .75" enough to allow "known" at some value -- and what value? Presumably, knowledge does not vary directly with justification, for there are some levels of justification (below .5, say) where the value of "known" is 0. On the other hand, with the relative fuzz, we get the the possibilities of fuzz values greater than 1 for normal "known" values (presumably all such give "known 1"). I suspect that intentionality is a better kite to fly here than fuzz. Sorry to drop this off just before I disappear into Florida for a week; I'll try to pick it up when I get back, if this discussion has not disappeared yet further into the mountain of stuff on this list. >|83 pc