Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:14:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801012214.RAA11295@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Re: Knowledge & Belief X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1201 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 1 17:14:19 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1998-01-01 13:27, Steven Belknap wrote: >It seems to me that one must either fuzzify with >, specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge is >claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am," such as: ... Oh, so "djuno" implies '_certain_ knowledge' now? Bear in mind that the range of things one might have non-fuzzily justifiably certain knowledge of is extremely limited, and wouldn't include your 'possibly true' example "Steven knows that Jorge asserts that Lojbab goes to the store." since Steven can never rule out having misheard, etc. Your definition of "djuno" doesn't seem particularly useful, and I would suggest that one matching a more usual English definition of 'know' (as indeed the gismu-list suggests) might be better. In any case, I think there are very few fields of discourse in which one can assume that every assertion will be perfectly true or false (mathematical proof is one, no others come to mind). Everywhere else, one has to allow for fuzziness, so it's nothing special for assertions involving "djuno" to be fuzzy any more than those involving "crino". -- fe'oca'emi'e tricrfraksizeicecmu .iji'a ca'emi'e .aclin.