From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 20 08:03:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 16:03:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 82287 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 16:03:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 16:03:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r20.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 16:03:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.33.1231f8d0 (3757) for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33.1231f8d0.27e8d946@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:18 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_33.1231f8d0.27e8d946_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_33.1231f8d0.27e8d946_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/20/2001 1:34:20 AM Central Standard Time,=20 xod@sixgirls.org writes: > The existence of djuno x4 forces him to accept the FACT that there are > other epistemologies than his own. A djuno x4, whether it translates > exactly into the English "epistemology" or not, does not have to be > logically consistent, scientifically consistent, or non-fattening. >=20 At a theoretical level, yes, but that need not lead one to believe that=20 others that one actually deals with have ones different from one's own. So= =20 one's epistemology can (and very often does) contain both "There are lots o= f=20 different epistemologies" and "Everybody's is just like mine," quite=20 inconsistent, but what he believes nonetheless. <> > > > > Not in English nor (under {sruma}) in Lojban. > Damn.=A0 We're back on different pages.> To what was I referring? I forget! Please don't cut away so much text!> It was not perfectly clear, but I took it to be: <>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.=A0 > OK. They are the same in one role that they play. But the claims made in= =20 high-seas ship-repair also have a different role iin the ship as a whole. = =20 They are not made up for the purpose of explaining something; they are=20 givens, parts of the person's belief structure that are not under attack. = =20 Thus they have to satisfy (but not just now) a different set of criteria fr= om=20 assumptions. Admittedly, "postulates" is not a totally adequate word for=20 them here, since it too is a word only about the role in explanation; perha= ps=20 "data" is better, though it suggests something more basic than is the case= =20 here. Again, it is not clear which point you mean, especially since none of them= =20 seem to support your assertion. One point was that some beliefs have cause= s=20 but no evidence, another was that among those causes are other beliefs=20 (typically about how to identify certain experiences), which are also not=20 evidence. --part1_33.1231f8d0.27e8d946_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/20/2001 1:34:20 AM Central Standard Time,=20
xod@sixgirls.org writes:

The existence of djuno x4= forces him to accept the FACT that there are
other epistemologies than his own. A djuno x4, whether it translates
exactly into the English "epistemology" or not, does not have to be
logically consistent, scientifically consistent, or non-fattening.

At a theoretical level, yes, but that need not lead one to believe that= =20
others that one actually deals with have ones different from one's own.= So=20
one's epistemology can (and very often does) contain both "There are lo= ts of=20
different epistemologies" and "Everybody's is just like mine," quite=20
inconsistent, but what he believes nonetheless.

<> > <These are called assumptions.>
> >
> Not in English nor (under {sruma}) in Lojban.
> Damn.=A0 We're back on different pages.>

To what was I referring? I forget! Please don't cut away so much text!&= gt;

It was not perfectly clear, but I took it to be:
<>The alternate view (why I said, "if taken literally"), is that,= in any
> discussion of an epistemological sort, some beliefs are to be take= n 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 issu= e.=A0 >

<I use sruma to mean "assumption" or "postulate". It may, in some co= ntexts,
be good to distinguish between these two, but I say sruma covers them
both. For the gismu definition says "assumption", and ru'a says
"postulate".>

OK. They are the same in one role that they play. But the c= laims made in=20
high-seas ship-repair also have a different role iin the ship as a whol= e.
They are not made up for the purpose of explaining something; they are= =20
givens, parts of the person's belief structure that are not under attac= k.
Thus they have to satisfy (but not just now) a different set of criteri= a from=20
assumptions. Admittedly, "postulates" is not a totally adequate w= ord for=20
them here, since it too is a word only about the role in explanation; p= erhaps=20
"data" is better, though it suggests something more basic than is the c= ase=20
here.

<I could argue against this point but since it lends support to my
assertion that "a belief without any evidence never occurs", I won't.&g= t;

Again, it is not clear which point you mean, especially since none of t= hem=20
seem to support your assertion. One point was that some beliefs h= ave causes=20
but no evidence, another was that among those causes are other beliefs= =20
(typically about how to identify certain experiences), which are also n= ot=20
evidence.

--part1_33.1231f8d0.27e8d946_boundary--