From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 19 13:41:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 21:41:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 28797 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 21:40:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 21:40:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 21:40:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.29.1209ae88 (4314) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:40:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:40:00 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] re: djuno [was: random lojban annoyance To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/19/2001 2:47:44 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > Can you give me any example some somebody believing anything without > evidence? Even the Son of Sam serial killer had evidence; his neighbor's > doberman told him to commit those murders. > It's hard to give a case, because as soon as I suggest one, you will come up with a plausible story about the evidence I must have had. The proof that there must be some such beliefs is a proof of just that "there are....", with not indications of what these beliefs might be (the usual candidates are things like "I am experiencing a yellow patch in my visual field," but these have along history of not working as needed. They are meant to be simple reports of experience, where no experience lies behind or explains or... the one reported.) The alternate view (why I said, "if taken literally"), is that, in any discussion of an epistemological sort, some beliefs are to be taken as established for the present discussion (justification for them is not to be asked for) and these can then be used to justify the items at issue. (These established items may become the questioned ones in anotehr discussion, however). This is known as "repairing the ship of beliefs while sailing on the experiential sea" -- and several things much worse. --part1_29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/19/2001 2:47:44 PM Central Standard Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


Can you give me any example some somebody believing anything without
evidence? Even the Son of Sam serial killer had evidence; his neighbor's
doberman told him to commit those murders.


It's hard to give a case, because as soon as I suggest one, you will come up
with a plausible story about the evidence I must have had.  The proof that
there must be some such beliefs is a proof of just that "there are....", with
not indications of what these beliefs might be (the usual candidates are
things like "I am experiencing a yellow patch in my visual field," but these
have along history of not working as needed.  They are meant to be simple
reports of experience, where no experience lies behind or explains or... the
one reported.)
The alternate view (why I said, "if taken literally"), is that, in any
discussion of an epistemological sort, some beliefs are to be taken as
established for the present discussion (justification for them is not to be
asked for) and these can then be used to justify the items at issue.  (These
established items may become the questioned ones in anotehr discussion,
however).  This is known as "repairing the ship of beliefs while sailing on
the experiential sea" -- and several things much worse. --part1_29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0_boundary--