Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:29:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802182029.PAA20336@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: A possible construction for djuno, jinvi X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan X-UIDL: df5ac4e884e48b81c8ae9a7fd7e1fff6 X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:07:59 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Let X be something that exists; a subject. Let P(X) be some proposition about X; an assertion. Let E(P(X)) be a function over the domain of propositions that returns the values "true" or "false"; an epistemology. Lojbab wants to (correctly) remind us that there exist an unlimited number of functions E, such that for any P(X), some E(P(X)) will return true, and some E(P(X)) will return false. True enough. And reminds us that when we say that we "know" P(X) by epistemology E, we generally mean to assert two things: that E(P(X)) returns true, and that we are aware of this. There is no conflict here. However, there seems to be some confusion about what these imply for the usefulness and meaning of things like {jinvi}, {fatci}, etc. Here's my attempt below. Please tell me if any of these meanings conflict in any way with (a) the baseline, (b) usage, or (c) either postmodern or classical philosophy. I don't believe they do. {py. jetnu eby.} Epistemology E evaluates E(P) to be true. Makes no judgment on the value of epistemology E. If E is elided, it is assumed to be whatever epistemology would normally apply to the situation. {py. fatci} Proposition P is true "in the absolute"; This asserts two things: that some (unstated) epistemology E returns true for P, and that E is unstated because it is the one and only real epistemology, perhaps undiscovered. It does /not/ assert that no epistemology exists which evaluates P as false. It only asserts that all those that do are mistaken by some absolute standard (reality, ultimate truth, God, whatever). It makes no sense to put an epistemology place here, because the very meaning of the word implies that there is only one relevant one in the universe. Note: Non-objectivist epistemologies would always evaluate the proposition {py. fatci} itself as false. Rand would assert that {le du'u aby. du aby. cu fatci}. {ko'a jinvi py. xy. eby.} ko'a opines that proposition P(X) is true /by some unstated epistemology/ by "evidence" E. E does not have to be an epistemology in this case, only some other proposition that seems to support P(X). "I think Apirin is effective for headaches because it cures mine". I know that this mere anecdote is hardly a valid epistemolgy; it's not even one I hold. But it does seem to support the contention, so I opine that my actual epistemology (which I don't have time to use at the moment, or which I may not even have) would probably evaluate it true. I am not actually asserting in this case that {py. jetnu} by any epistemology; I am only stating that I suspect it is because of "evidence" E. {ko'a djuno py. xy. eby.} Asserts two things: 1. {py. jetnu eby.}, i.e., E(P(X)) returns true; and 2. ko'a is aware of both P(X) and E(P(X)). It does not in any way imply that {py. fatci}, or that anyone other than {le djuno} knows, or that any other E would return true. The "assumed" E if elided is simply whatever E {le djuno} would normally apply to the situation. If {la djan. djuno le du'u mi speni la djein.}, he knows I married Jane because he was at the wedding, or he sees us together and I introduce her as my wife, or simply because I told him and he trusts me. If he chose some other epistemology (say, he went to city hall to verify the records and discovers that we had faked it all), then he would now know /that/ proposition by the new epistemology. It could still be said that he previously /knew/ we were married (by the older, mistaken epistemology--perhaps that's not normal Enlgish usage, but so what?), but now he knows we faked it. The sentence above changed from a true one to a false one not because the underlying facts changed, but because the elided epistemology changed. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC