From pycyn@aol.com Wed Mar 21 14:40:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 22:40:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 65149 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 22:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 22:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 22:40:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.a0.11bd08ab (4222) for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:40:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:40:01 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Objective Reality & krici (was: Random lojban questions/annoyanc... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a0.11bd08ab.27ea87c1_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a0.11bd08ab.27ea87c1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 3/21/2001 3:41:38 PM Central Standard Time,=20 xod@sixgirls.org 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". >=20 Nope. Its true meaning is "being in that certain cognitive state with=20 respect to a certain proposition" Evidence, epistemology, and whatever el= se=20 you want to throw in of a justificatory sort are simply irrelevant to wheth= er=20 or not a person believes that p; all that counts is the person's=20 psychological state and p's role in it. It may be that the person also kno= ws=20 that p, which is to say, that in addition to believing that p (being in the= =20 appropriate psychological state), he also believes a number of other things= =20 which are within veldjuno and which collectively support p, and believes th= at=20 they do, and, further, p is true in veldjuno. Notice that belief cannot be= =20 dropped out of this description in favor of knowing-minus, but rather is=20 needed in its pure sense to get to knowledge. None of this, even that the= =20 beliefs are in a particular epistemology has any place in "believes." We=20 could (with some minor problems) get rid of {djuno}, but not of {krici}. [BTW {krici} is not a meaningless term if it has a =E2=80=9Ctrue meaning.= =E2=80=9D=C2=A0 That=20 =E2=80=9Ctrue meaning=E2=80=9D is just away that it is used (quite justifia= bly as noted=20 earlier) in certain rhetorical moves.] --part1_a0.11bd08ab.27ea87c1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 3/21/2001 3:41:38 PM Central Standard Time,=20
xod@sixgirls.org writes:

I never claimed "good evi= dence", or "evidence you and I
would agree to". A great many beliefs are based on evidence that I do n= ot
approve of. But they ARE based on something that is taken as evidence b= y
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=20
respect to a certain proposition" Evidence, epistemology, a= nd whatever else=20
you want to throw in of a justificatory sort are simply irrelevant to w= hether=20
or not a person believes that p; all that counts is the person's=20
psychological state and p's role in it. It may be that the person= also knows=20
that p, which is to say, that in addition to believing that p (being in= the=20
appropriate psychological state), he also believes a number of other th= ings=20
which are within veldjuno and which collectively support p, and believe= s that=20
they do, and, further, p is true in veldjuno. Notice that belief = cannot be=20
dropped out of this description in favor of knowing-minus, but rather i= s=20
needed in its pure sense to get to knowledge. None of this, even = that the=20
beliefs are in a particular epistemology has any place in "believes." &= nbsp;We=20
could (with some minor problems) get rid of {djuno}, but not of {krici}= .
[BTW {krici} is not a meaningless term if it has a =E2=80=9Ctrue meanin= g.=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 That=20
=E2=80=9Ctrue meaning=E2=80=9D is just away that it is used (quite just= ifiably as noted=20
earlier) in certain rhetorical moves.]
--part1_a0.11bd08ab.27ea87c1_boundary--