Date:  Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:53:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801111453.JAA23495@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 668eaea25325c41401697f263fd217c3
Status: RO
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2473
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:56:12 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

>Yes, you're right. <porpi> is not agentive. So its:
>
><.i mi djuno le du'u la xorxes kau pu porpi gasnu le rulja'o>

You either have to make the lujvo or reword that, because
the x2 of gasnu is the event of breaking, not the vase.
You could say {xy gasnu le nu le rulja'o cu porpi} = "x makes
that the vase breaks".


 >>But wouldn't it be better to know by {le nu racli birti} = "being
>>rationally certain", rather than by >rationally doubting?
>
>Hmm. I don't think <le nu racli birti> is quite right, as I am trying to
>translate "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard of American
>jurisprudence in a criminal trial. The question the jury must answer is,
>"Is there a reasonable doubt?" and not "Is there reasonable certainty?"

If you don't think those two are exclusive, then how about "le nu racli
nalsenpi" = "reasonable non-doubt".

The trouble with "beyond" is that it depends on where you start from.
If you start from uncertainty, then getting past the point of reasonable
doubt means getting to the side of certainty. But if you start from
certainty, then passing the point of reasonable doubt means getting
to the side of uncertainty. So you could be beyond a reasonable
doubt if you had lots of doubts. Maybe something like: {le nu ragve
le ka racli senpi kei le ka senpi} = "being beyond reasonably doubtful
starting from being doubtful".

> Also, you are right that I need an abstractor, but <nu> doesn't
>seem right, as "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not an event.

It can be a nu, a state in this case. But I don't know whether
it makes sense that events are epistemologies.

>It seems to me
>that "beyond a reasonable doubt" implies that the evidence is being weighed
>on a scale (the scales of justice), and found to surpass a threshold, which
>seems rather like a numerical quantity:
>
><.i mi ja'a xipa djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi gasnu le rulja'o kei fo
>le za'u ni racli senpi>

That's grammatical, but I'm not getting into the discussion of what
{ni} means again. :) {le za'u ni} would seem to be "a positive number
of amounts", I think you need {le piza'u ni} for "a positive amount".
But do you really want "a positive amount of rational doubting" as the
epistemology?

co'o mi'e xorxes




>"I know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Jorge who broke the vase."
>
>>co'o mi'e la fudjistivn
>
>
>Steven Belknap, M.D.
>Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
>University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria
>