From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Feb 13 07:35:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 15:35:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 4371 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 15:35:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 15:35:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 15:35:51 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:07:46 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:33:55 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:33:26 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: #Now come on! How does the narrator "know" the object was an=20 #elephant? He is claiming objective knowledge in distinction to the 6 blind= =20 #men! Where does it imply anywhere that the narrator is unsure of his belie= f=20 #that the animal was an Elephant? The criticism stands, whether or not it's= =20 #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. --And.