From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Mar 21 15:00:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 23:00:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 19092 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 23:00:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 23:00:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 00:01:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2LN1Pu05941 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:01:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:01:25 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Objective Reality & krici (was: Random lojban questions/annoyanc... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/21/2001 3:41:38 PM Central Standard Time, > 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 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 > respect to a certain proposition" Evidence, epistemology, and whatever = else > you want to throw in of a justificatory sort are simply irrelevant to whe= ther > 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 t= he > appropriate psychological state), he also believes a number of other thin= gs > 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 th= e > 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 =E2=80=9Ctrue meaning.= =E2=80=9D=C2=A0 That > =E2=80=9Ctrue meaning=E2=80=9D is just away that it is used (quite justif= iably as noted > earlier) in certain rhetorical moves.] I don't know what "knowing-minus" means. But I largely agree with your text, because it completely avoids the issue of "believing WITHOUT evidence". Krici doesn't mean simply "belief", it means, again: x1 believes [without evidence/proof] belief/creed x2 ----- "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.