Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:27:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801090727.CAA27980@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: knowledge and belief X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2584 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 9 02:27:41 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Jorge: >Well, suppose that 1+1=2 is true by epistemology X. > >Then the following statement is a reasonable thing to say: > > la djan na djuno le du'u li re sumji li pa li pa kei fo xy > It is not the case that John knows that 1+1=2 by X. > >Here it is clear that X is the epistemology by which we judge the >truth of "1=1+2". Not the epistemology by which we judge whether >John knows something. > >For that sentence to make sense, it must be true that 1+1=2 by X, >even if John doesn't know it. This works for what I've been calling "rational epistemologies". But there are some epistemologies that are so linked to John and his proneness to claim knowledge of facts that "even if John doesn't know it" makes no sense. One example of this would be instictive knowledge; another (more easily used with du'u abstractions) is dream-based knowledge. It is plausible that if John knows X from dream Y that X is true by epistemology dream Y, but since dreams are unverifiable and unreproducible, I am not sure that anyone other than John could make that claim (X is true by epistemology Y). I think most people would interpret jetnu as referring to only those truths that are "knower-independent" - that the epsitemology is in some way reproducible/verifiable so that most anyone in theory could claim to "know" it by the common epsitemology. There are instances, such as when John speaks, where djuno implies jetnu, but that is not the typical or default to be assumed. jetnu is still considerably short of fatci, though, since by Newtonian physics, Newton's laws are jetnu, but they are not currently considered fatci. >>But it is not >>clear to me how differs from . > >{djuno} requires the x2 to be true. {krici} doesn't. If djuno requires x2 to betrue by epistemology x4 9which is what I think you are claiming, then djuno fo le li'i krici always implies krici and krici always implies djuno fo le li'i krici. But krici is another epistemology besides dreams that is generally "knower" dependent, and hence it is not generally true that krici or djuno fo le li'i krici imply jetnu le li'i krici lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.