Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:15:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801170415.XAA14404@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Knowledge and belief X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 5273e7bdec3f4473db32f03d1d109560 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2058 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jan 20 09:48:05 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: >>>IN any event, for a baby, I don't even think "belief" is necessarily >>>a valid claim - it is more like "insticntually expects that the mother is >>>about to feed her". >> >>You're branching into separte issues. If you use "know" then you >>require the presupposition. Whether babies are capable of >>knowing is a different matter. > >In English usage, we certainly do not question whether a baby, or even my >cat is capable of "knowing" basic stuff like whether someone is about to feed >them. Then I don't understand your above objection. It seems that we are in complete agreement here. > My cat knows it on the basis of reading my body language and movements, >or something. Now if I were to drop dead of a heart attack before putting the >can down, then you might say after the fact that she didn't really know >that I was going to feed her because I didn't, but that sounds just as >clumsy to my ear as saying that she knew I was going to feed her, but I didn't. >No - on writing them, I think the latter sounds better. Yes, the latter sounds better to me too. The presupposition is that you were about to feed her, and it is still true that you were about to feed her. >In any event, for djuno, with the epistemology place filled in, one can >know something that later turns out to be false, because the epistemology will >have been found inadequate. This sounds like unfounded theory. There haven't been any examples like that that I'm aware of, and that's not how "know" works in English. It will be interesting if {djuno} really ever turns out to be used like that. >So far we have few epistemologies that predict >the future with 100% accxuracy (if any). But we still can claim to know >9and to djuno) that something "will" happen. What we say after the fact may >be something else, but djuno should still be valid before the event. No argument against that. You can claim djuno as long as you presuppose jetnu. If later you find out that jetnu doesn't hold, then you will withdraw the djuno claim as well. co'o mi'e xorxes