Re: djuno and ce'u

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> >> This is not even true for English.  To be seasonal, many people "know"
> >> that "Christ was born on Christmas Day", even though there is
> >> considerable evidence even in the scriptural accounts that suggest
> >> otherwise.  The scholars who interpret otherwise, and who know the
> >> history of the association of Christmas with Dec. 25, "know" that Christ
> >> was NOT born on Christmas Day.
> >
> >I don't see how you are trying to make your point. By using
> >scarequotes you are implicitly attributing the belief in the
> >truth of the knowee to the knower rather than yourself.
>
> I am not sure that I understand your point.  A claim that X knows
> Y says nothing about I think/believe/know unless I am X IN LOJBAN.

That's what I dispute, for reasons already given. I am making a
descriptive observation based on the prescription and on usage.

However, I accept John's formulation that x2 of djuno is judged
by the speaker to be true in worlds in which the x4 (metaphysics)
obtains.

>  In English we seldom make statements about knowledge where the
> speaker might have reason to dispute the truth of the "known".

That's because if we don't think it true then we don't call it
knowledge. It's belief.

> However, since Lojban recognizes multiple epistemologies as valid
> for truth and knowledge, Lojban does not abide by the English
> convention.  Thus, for Lojban, I can say that the Pope djuno ledu'u
> Mary was born via Immaculate Conception fo Catholic dogma even
> though I as a non-Catholic, do not subscribe to that epistemology
> as granting ME knowledge.

OK. I go along with this.

> krici would not be the optimal choice since it implies no epistemological
 basis
> for the belief.
> >If you tell me that you find
> >
> >  He knows that Christ was born on Christmas Day and she knows that
> >  Christ was born on Christmas day.
> >
> >acceptable, then I will not believe you.
>
> I fail to see a reason why it would not be acceptable.

That's because in my haste I left out "not"! It should be:

> >  He knows that Christ was born on Christmas Day and she knows that
> >  Christ was NOT born on Christmas day.

> Last week, I would
> have easily said that I am most other people know that teleportation is
> impossible.  But then I read of the experiments that demonstrated quantum
> teleportation, so I now know differently than before.  So to many other people
> now know differently.  Buit those who have not been exposed to this new
> information, know something else.

yOU'RE using "know" in an empathetic way, using a rhetorical
device of subjectivity, where the speaker assumes the identity
of someone spoken about.

> >> I am not sure what you mean.  We have "krici" for believe, which is
> >> identical in the first 3 places to djuno, but requires no
> >> epistemological place, because no epistemologically based evidence is
> >> required for belief.
> >
> >It may be that no epistemologically based evidence is required for
> >{krici}. But it is required for belief.
> >The difference between the words _know_ and _believe_ is that only
> >the former is "factive": only it presupposes the truth of the
> >complement.
>
> That is not the difference between the Lojban words.  Lojban first of all
> distinguishes between facts and truths.  Only fatci is factive.

Mere assertion....

> >We can start a discussion on truth and cognition, but it's not
> >pertinent to what has been discussed so far.
>
> I'm saying nothing about truth and cognition - I am explaining what the
> Lojban words are prescribed to mean.

Show me that prescription.

&.

p.s. Happy Crimbo & New Year.