X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34C6527E.302E@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:54:38 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO References: <199801211829.NAA02728@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 14:54:38 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la .rab. .zuk. cusku di'e > This regresses epistemology back to absolute truth, which will never > seem like a tenable position. Truth only makes sense as a measurable > quantity, and as such only has meaning relative to the instrument > (i.e. system of knowledge) that you measure it with. There are other truths beside measurement-truth, such as definition-truth, convention-truth, etc. When talking about truth here I leave the basis for the truth vague, because that vagueness can be copied directly from the x2 of jetnu to the x4 of djuno. The only exception is "belief-truth", in which the difference between knowledge and belief is reduced to a nullity. > Within the system of knowledge that Sam and Frank used was it > a justified true belief (did they have any reason beyond the normal > to doubt the truth of the newspapers report)? It was a justified *false* belief, because the newspaper report was false. I see no reason to think that Sam and Frank had a system of knowledge containing a rule "Anything that is printed in the newspaper is true". > If not, then within > that system it was true and justified, and thus knowledge. The > system you persist in regarding the situation should be regarded > as seperated and more inclusive from the one Sam and Frank evaluated > it from. The point is that when they arrived on Bermuda, the justified false belief had become a justified true one, but they hadn't *learned* anything. Therefore, their justified true belief on 12 November doesn't count as *knowledge*. la .and. cusku di'e > >I don't know whether I agree or not. Either way, this point is > >a refinement of my more general point, which is that DJUNO means > >"know" AND has a metaphysics place. So it is. > >We can then go on to discuss what *precisely* counts as knowledge, > >but it ceases to be a Lojban-specific issue (except to the extent > >that DJUNO involves knowledge). If "djuno" doesn't involve knowledge, then what does it involve? I haven't even introduced, he said with a malicious grin, Nozick's four-point definition of knowledge, viz: A knows p iff: 1) A believes p; 2) p is true; 3) if p were false, then A wouldn't believe it; 4) if p were true, then A would believe it. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)