Date:  Thu, 1 Jan 1998 16:36:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801012136.QAA10490@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1626
Lines: 35

.i markl cusku di'e
>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
>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.

The combination of first order predicate logic and an epistemologically
oriented bridi like <djuno> seems to me to be rather too rigid to justify
such a statement as:

<le kavbu ku cu djuno lo du'u le renro ku mo'u renro le bolci>

Maybe the catcher had a massive stroke shortly after catching the ball, and
thus knows nothing at all. Maybe he dropped the ball and picked it up very
quickly, and it was a called 3rd strike, so the catcher knows that he did
not catch the ball in the sense of <mo'u>, even though Mark believes that
the catcher believes that he caught it. Speaking as a baseball fan, this
happens all the time; I've been genuinely surprised by the instant replay
on many occasions. It seems to me that one must either fuzzify <djuno> with
<jei>, specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge is
claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am," such as:

<la markl co'i viska nu le renro mo'u renro le bolci ku le kabvu kei>

.i co'omi'e la stivn


Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria