Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:29:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801111929.OAA02096@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: knowledge and belief X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" "Re: knowledge and belief" (Jan 9, 12:32pm) X-UIDL: dfd2e1d979d67d4cf9275de3212130d3 Status: RO X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1186 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:56:32 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la xorxes. spuda mi di'e > Do you really > think that a pragmatically minded person will use "know" > in English for something that is not true? mi spuda la xorxes. di'e It _often_ happens that a pragmatically minded person will use "know" in English for an assertion, the truth value of which is uncertain. Indeed, I contend that "know" is more often used in this way than in _any_ other. > Actual usage of {djuno} has been like English "know", > not like English "is convinced". But you & I disagree on how English "know" is used; we are therefore quite unlikely to agree on the actual usage of {djuno}, which you liken to a usage of "know" that I think is actually quite rare. > Of course there will always be margin for > error, that doesn't matter. Au contraire; that is precisely what matters here. > What would be the unyielding > logically minded position here? I was trying to say that both positions are equally unyielding. The pragmatic position appears to be flexible, but the question of whether flexibility has value is still in contention; thus, to insist on flexibility & compromise is to be an unyielding advocate of the pragmatic position. co'omi'e markl.