Subject: krici (was: Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:33:24 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> In a message dated 3/20/2001 1:34:20 AM Central Standard Time,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
>
> <> > <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 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.

Well, you cut the text away again! I can't refresh my memory! Please, take
it easier with the snipping and cutting!

I believe you were telling me how beliefs are based on evidence, and
evidence is always informational. And even if a belief is triggered by
sense data, it gets combined with some information before it generates a
belief. Well, this supports my assertion that "a belief without any
evidence never occurs". If you're willing to accept subliminal, unspoken,
and trivial "facts" as evidence for beliefs, then I'm home free. For
instance, the proposition that "If I see an insect fly through the air,
it's really there".

Furthermore, the English in the definition of krici is not clear if it
uses technical meaning of "evidence", not the common one. Commonly, sense data
is taken as "evidence" for a belief. For instance - belief in UFOs because
I saw 2 of them, or belief that a fly landed on my arm because I felt and
saw it land there.

In conclusion:

Using the common English definition of "evidence" (sense data or
information), there is never any belief without evidence.

Using the technical epistemological definition of "evidence"
(propositions), which includes subliminal "obvious facts", there is never
any belief without evidence.

The gismu "krici" is meaningless and should be ignored.

-----
"The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed
with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups
strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give
man something with which to compare himself; and he had created
man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.