From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Mar 19 15:24:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 23:24:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 11134 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 23:24:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 23:24:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 23:24:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2JN1wE13131 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:01:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:01:58 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: krici (was: djuno [was: random lojban annoyance In-Reply-To: <29.1209ae88.27e7d6b0@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 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.) x1 believes [without evidence/proof] belief/creed x2 (du'u) is true/assumed about subject x3 If you tell me you're seeing spots, that's not a selkrici of yours. It's either a fact, or it's a lie, but it's not a belief without evidence. If I believe you when you say this, that's not a selkrici of mine. My evidence was your testimony. > 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. These are called assumptions. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!