RE: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>]

xod:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Xod:
> > #Now come on! How does the narrator "know" the object was an
> > #elephant? He is claiming objective knowledge in distinction to the 6 blind
> > #men! Where does it imply anywhere that the narrator is unsure of his belief
> > #that the animal was an Elephant? The criticism stands, whether or not it's
> > #relevant to the point of the fable. (I tend to think not.)
> >
> > It depends on the UI the narrator uses. It is possible for the narrator
> > to assemble a set of sentences that describe a state-of-affairs without
> > the narrator necessarily claiming that the state-of-affairs is objectively
> > real. Indeed, that is how stories and fables work.
>
> Nobody's debating whether the story is hypothetical as opposed to being a
> historical document.

You are in effect saying that the narrator is claiming that the text has
the status of a historical document. I can't think of another context
in which you could say he is claiming objective knowledge. Ordinary
stories and fables aren't claims; they're just descriptions, whose
truth is unimportant.

--And.