From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Dec 22 16:40:43 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 75081 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2004 00:40:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Dec 2004 00:40:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2004 00:40:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1ChH1y-0002tO-CW for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:40:38 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ChH1p-0002q8-W0; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:40:30 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1ChH1e-0002pw-5o for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:40:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:40:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20041223004018.GI20429@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041223000949.GC20429@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20041223003420.44736.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041223003420.44736.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-archive-position: 9111 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Founders: ja'o and ni'ikri X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23510 On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 04:34:20PM -0800, jordi mas wrote: > > > Yes, but we also believe things *regardless* of proof, or things > > where we believe (heh) that proof exists but have not actually > > examined it ourselves. There are *lots* of those, and krici > > should cover them. > > And there are also LOTS of beliefs that we don't think *need* a > proof. They are simply assumed because everybody says so, or > becuase everybody nearby seem to believe them. Whoever tries to > deny them, disproof them or prove them is classed as a "freak" and > becomes an outcast. They seem to be outside the domain of proof. > Is {jinvi fo no} good enough for these? It is, but what I don't see is why krici should *require* a total lack of evidence. There are very few people who would ever say that the believe *anything* in an utter abscence of evidence. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/