From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 15:27:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 30 Mar 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 44151 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:27:36 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.47 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:27:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.47] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:27:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2001 23:27:36.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[00DF6FA0:01C0B971] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6340 la xod cusku di'e >Do you trust the experts that Pluto is further out than Jupiter, or do you >remain skeptical? I trust them, it is not something that would be hard to verify. If for some unlikely reason, however, it was discovered that Pluto is not further out than Jupiter, I would of course not keep claiming that it is true, or that it ever had been true. >Something about calling them "both probably wrong" hinted in that >direction. Since you follow the philosophies of neither, I assumed you >would have a different way to analyze the problems of a worker's state >with an underdeveloped proletariat. You might not even choose to analyze >it using those terms. I never claimed I had an alternative theory! Here is what I said in context: > > >But what about the disputes between Trotskyists > > >and Maoists? Which is correct and which is incorrect > >in this One >Truth model? > > > > I don't know, probably neither of them. Maybe it doesn't even > > make sense to say that one is correct. I don't see how it would > > help to claim that each of them knows a truth which the other knows > > to be false. If there is argument between them it is obviously because each thinks they're right and can convince the other. Otherwise, if they agree that their epistemologies differ, there would be no point to the dispute, they would not be saying anything wich had meaning to the other. >Also, it's a lot more objectively accurate to say "X is true according to >Y but not me", rather than for the speaker to collapse the argument to a >binary value and blurt "X is false". It's more useful when discussing >comparative ideas. You're talking about good manners here, not about the meaning of words. Saying "x is true according to y but not me" is perfectly fine and non-contradictory. It's just another way of saying "I think y is wrong about x". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.