Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:12:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199801232059.PAA20840@access4.digex.net> To: cowan@locke.ccil.org Subject: Re: Knowledge and belief Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-UIDL: 1dd05da6cf0818917ee9b15950c78883 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1690 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:40:04 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >Logical Language Group wrote: > >> Now if Y is a proposition based on djuno, then the above statement says that >> someone knows the x2 of Y at time X. If indeed that someone knows that x2 a >> time X, then the fact that this x2 is found to be false should not change >> the truth valiue of the X-time knowledge claim. > >What we're saying is that "x1 knows that x2 at time X" and "x2 is false" are >contradictory statements. If x2 turns out to be false, then x1 didn't >know x2 at any time, no matter what x1 or anyone else believed at time X. But where does the epistemology/metaphysics come in? Your English has left them out, and I am sufficiently Lojbanized in my English meanings that "x2 is false" is hopelessly ambiguous to me barring a lot more context. Was x2 false at time X? Was x2 at time X false? Were these false by x1's worldview/epistemology/choice of metaphysics? Unless the speaker is explicitly brought into the bridi, I think that the speaker's metaphysics should be irrelevant (I'll amend that - the speaker may be brouyght into the text at large via context, in which case I would consider the speaker's world view to be implicitly relevant. BTW, if I understand what pc wrote, I agree with all he said. 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.