Subject: Re: [lojban] Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:18 EST

In a message dated 3/20/2001 1:34:20 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] 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 
others that one actually deals with have ones different from one's own. So 
one's epistemology can (and very often does) contain both "There are lots of 
different epistemologies" and "Everybody's is just like mine," quite 
inconsistent, but what he believes nonetheless.

<> > <These are called assumptions.>
> >
> Not in English nor (under {sruma}) in Lojban.
> Damn.  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.  >

<I use sruma to mean "assumption" or "postulate". It may, in some contexts,
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 claims made in 
high-seas ship-repair also have a different role iin the ship as a whole.  
They are not made up for the purpose of explaining something; they are 
givens, parts of the person's belief structure that are not under attack.  
Thus they have to satisfy (but not just now) a different set of criteria from 
assumptions. Admittedly, "postulates" is not a totally adequate word for 
them here, since it too is a word only about the role in explanation; perhaps 
"data" is better, though it suggests something more basic than is the case 
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.>

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