Date:  Fri, 2 Jan 1998 17:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801022224.RAA13916@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>
Subject:      Re: Knowledge and Belief
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199801011957.LAA09122@gateway.informix.com>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1379
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan  2 17:24:37 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

At 03:00 PM 1/1/98 -0600, mark.vines wrote:
>> Could you provide an English gloss for <le kavbu cu
>> djuno lo du'u le renro ba'o renro le bolci>, I cannot
>> figure out quite what you meant.
>
>"The catcher knows that the pitcher threw the ball."
>
>Steven has suggested replacing {ba'o} with {mo'u},
>which might be better.  He has also suggested replacing
>{djuno} with {sidbo} & {du'u} with {nu}, which I think
>is ridiculous; in my scenario, I *saw* the catcher
>catching the pitch, so I feel justified in saying that
>the catcher *knows* that the pitch happened.

But you speculate beyond any possible evidence, since you
cannot tell what goes inside the catcher's mind.

>But
>Steven would have us believe that knowledge is such a
>purely internal state that only the catcher hi/rself
>can say anything about what the catcher knows.

I would have to agree with that. One cannot directly observe
someone elses knowledge without that other's help - via them
saying what they know. You could perhaps build a logical
argument to justify you know what someone else knows, but
in this case you provide none in your statement.

I would guess one uses the "epistemology x4" place for a
logical justification.


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