Subject: Re: [lojban] Objective Reality & krici (was: Random lojban questions/annoyanc...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:40:01 EST

In a message dated 3/21/2001 3:41:38 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I never claimed "good evidence", or "evidence you and I
> would agree to". A great many beliefs are based on evidence that I do not
> approve of. But they ARE based on something that is taken as evidence by
> the believers. And that's why krici is a meaningless term. Its true
> meaning is "djuno where x4 is controversial".
> 

Nope. Its true meaning is "being in that certain cognitive state with 
respect to a certain proposition" Evidence, epistemology, and whatever else 
you want to throw in of a justificatory sort are simply irrelevant to whether 
or not a person believes that p; all that counts is the person's 
psychological state and p's role in it. It may be that the person also knows 
that p, which is to say, that in addition to believing that p (being in the 
appropriate psychological state), he also believes a number of other things 
which are within veldjuno and which collectively support p, and believes that 
they do, and, further, p is true in veldjuno. Notice that belief cannot be 
dropped out of this description in favor of knowing-minus, but rather is 
needed in its pure sense to get to knowledge. None of this, even that the 
beliefs are in a particular epistemology has any place in "believes." We 
could (with some minor problems) get rid of {djuno}, but not of {krici}.
[BTW {krici} is not a meaningless term if it has a “true meaning.”  That 
“true meaning” is just away that it is used (quite justifiably as noted 
earlier) in certain rhetorical moves.]