[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:07 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/1/28 Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM, DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

There is a discrepancy between the definitions of {krici} in jbovlaste & the gismu wordlist. In the latter, it specifically states "without evidence/proof". Here's the link < http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/gismu.txt >. Does anyone know whether that is out of date and/or whether jbovlaste is, when in doubt, the higher authority?

Either way, your point stands, because it's merely a comment; nonetheless the discrepancy surprised me, & indicates the possibility of other, more salient discrepancies. mu'o mi'e komfn