[lojban-beginners] Re: "Why should I believe that?"

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM, DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why should I believe that?" is a fairly simple phrase, and the
> cornerstone of the scientific method and skeptical movement... and I'm
> having a bit of a time figuring out the Lojban version.

A direct translation would be:

  ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u
  What is a reason that I ought to believe that?

>The most
> relevant lujvo or gismu I can find dealing with belief is krici, which
> is belief /without/ evidence or proof, the exact opposite of the sort
> of belief I want to deal with.

No, "krici" is not necessarily belief without evidence. The
"[regardless of evidence/proof]" comment in the definition only says
that evidence/proof is not part of the "krici" concept, "krici" just
relates the believer and their belief, without saying anything about
how the believer came to that belief, what led them to that belief.

The comment is something of a "don't think of a pink elephant"
distractor. Instead of distancing "krici" from the concept of
evidence, it leads people to think that "krici" is for beliefs without
evidence.

But it is of course perfectly legitimate to ask for reasons (krinu)
for believeing (krici) something.

> Another way to say the same idea in
> English is "What evidence supports that [assertion]?", but I'm having
> trouble figuring out the different lujvo; would
>
> ma xu'acmu fi ta
>
> translate to something like "What evidence is the basis for asserting that?"

Or just:

  ma jicmu la´e di'u
  What is the basis for that?

  ma sarji la´e di'u
  What supports that?

  ma poi datni cu sarji la'e di'u
  What data supports that?

If you are considering scientific theories, "krici" and "xusra" are
probably irrelevant. It doesn't really matter who believes what or who
asserts what, what matters is what data or observations support or
falsify what theory.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest:
> {mi jinvi da'i la'e di'u fo ma}
>
> Gloss:
> I think/opine -- supposedly -- the referent of the previous statement on
> what grounds?

The problem with that is that the scope of the "supposedly" comes out
wrong. The question asks for a reason for the "should believe", not
for something to be supposed as a reason.

You could also ask "do jinvi la'e di'u fo ma", "what basis do *you*
have to think that?, and I might then use the same basis to think the
same thing, but it doesn't make so much sense to ask someone else to
tell me what are the basis for my own beliefs.

mu'o mi'e xorxes