From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:54:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Mar 2001 00:54:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 8483 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2001 00:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Mar 2001 00:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.138) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2001 00:54:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:54:40 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.23 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:54:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.23] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] krici Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:54:40 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2001 00:54:40.0566 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7722560:01C0B333] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >Usage one is the informational basis for a belief. (velji'i?) Sounds good, though using the word belief there instead of opinion, while not wrong, is tendentious on your part. >Usage two is the quality of the informational basis for a belief. >(jezvelji'i?) Yuck! Not a third meaning for {jei} I hope! I suppose you don't mean that to be a truth value (TRUE, FALSE, or something in between). And I suppose you don't mean it to be an indirect question either. >This is invoked chiefly when criticising the evidence of >another. People will say "you have no evidence for that"; a sentence >which, using usage one reads "the evidence you are using has insufficient >quality". Maybe we should try to say that before going for the lujvo. i le do velji'i na banzu le nu birtygau Your evidence is not enough to convince. i le do velji'i cu mutce le ka na birtygau Your evidence is very unconvincing. i do ja'aru'e dunda lo velji'i be di'u You have barely given evidence for that. i di'u ja'aru'e velji'i That scarcely qualifies as evidence. >Let's assume he >believes a certain statement because it is found in his scripture. The >evidence for his belief of the statement is the sentence in the scripture! Usually it works the other way around. Religious people justify their beliefs to others by quoting the appropriate part of the scripture, but that is not how they came to believe what they believe. The belief was previous to the justification. Since you can find justification for practically any belief in the Bible, it is a popular method. >To summarize the distracting conflation: the question of WHAT constitutes >evidence for a certain individual is different from the question of WHY >that person chooses to allow it to constitute valid evidence! And also separate from the question of how or why the believer came to hold that belief. >And I re-issue my challenge: Show me a case of somebody believing >something without evidence according to the first usage, not the second. I sometimes believe in God's existence, though I am not aware of any evidence to justify that belief, in fact I strongly opine that there is none. Most of the time I believe that God does not exist, though again I doubt there is any evidence for that belief either. In some rare occasions I am agnostic, neither a believer nor an atheist, but not very often. What I believe in this respect is mostly dependent on my mood and the people I am with. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.