Re: knowledge and belief

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Steven:
><djuno> and <jinvi> are not synonyms. At least I hope they are not!

So do I!  I'm trying to find out what are the differences. Are they the
same differences as between "know" and "think/opine"? I thought
they were, and that agrees with usage as far as I can tell.

> I would
>use <djuno> to refer to a mathematical fact, which can be absolutely true,
>as mathematics is an artificial construction founded on assumed postulates.

Here we agree. I have no problem with:

            la djan djuno le du'u li vo sumji li re li re
            John knows that 2 + 2 = 4.

>I might also use <djuno> to refer to a religious fact, which is true
>because it is asserted as true by an authoritative source.

Here I have my doubts, because I don't understand what is the
context you have in mind. In a gathering of religious believers
where it is generally accepted that {ko'a jetnu}, "X is true", then
I have no problem with someone saying {la djan djuno ko'a},
"John knows that X". Now, if you tell me, an outsider of that
credo, that John knows that X, I will disagree, because using
"know" presupposes or entails that X is true, which I don't
accept.

So, my point is that {la djan djuno ko'a} is acceptable only
if {ko'a jetnu} is also acceptable. Both have a place for
epistemology, so just fill them both with the same one.
Lojbab disagreed with that, but then I don't understand the
difference between {djuno} and {jinvi}.

>I might also use
>it to refer to a Wittgensteinian philosophical assertion, (but then some of
>you may recall that Wittgenstein himself considered philosphizing to be a
>form of mental illness.)

Depends on the assertion, I suppose.

>If I were in the military I would use <djuno> to
>pronounce my certainty in the pronouncements of my drill sargeant.

For example?

>I would
>*not* use <djuno> to refer to an assertion I was making about the real
>world, but would instead use <jinvi> for these assertions.

So you would not say, for example:

        la djan djuno le du'u ti blanu
        John knows that this is blue.

Why not? If you think that's not an acceptable Lojban sentence, then
there really is a big difference with English. (I hope you don't have a
problem with the English sentence!)

>Fuzzy modifiers
>could then be used to adjectivize either <djuno> or <jinvi>.

Of course. No doubt about that.

 >It is not possible to prove the second law of Thermodynamics or the Theory
>of special Relativity, for these refer to the real world, and are
>potentially incomplete or inaccurate. The difference between these two
>gismu is the difference between references to a Platonic world and a real
>world.

And yet it is possible to know that under certain conditions water boils
at a certain temperature. You would not use {djuno} to translate that?

>Jorge's use of know and think is interesting. I do not doubt that this is
>how he uses these words, but this usage is very different from my own.

I haven't seen any usage of yours that I found odd. Can you point out
which usage of mine you find different from yours? Or are you talking
about our respective abstract definitions?

>When
>I use these words to describe my knowledge about an assertion, I consider
>the predicates know/believe/think/suspect/uncertain to form a fuzzy
>continuum from certainty to uncertainty.

Yes, that may be so. In Lojban we can use discursives for that function,
too.
In the posting you were replying to I had said:

>> It's more a matter of whether or not the reported beliefs
>> coincide with one's own/established beliefs or not. When you're
>> reporting your own beliefs, then "know"/"think" can be used to mark
>> the degree of certainty, because obviously the basic difference
>> collapses for the first person: normally your own beliefs coincide
>> with your own beliefs.

>Consider these sentences:

Notice that all your examples are in the first person. We cannot
test my hypothesis with such examples...

>I know that flying saucers do not exist because the Bible forbids it.
>
>In my usage in this context, "to know" means there is no doubt, "to
>believe" means there is a trace of doubt, "to think" means I have slight
>doubt, and invite correction.

Do you find this one acceptable:

            la djan djuno le du'u ti goi ko'a mlatu
            i ku'i la alis djuno le du'u ko'a gerku
            "John knows that this is a cat, but Ali knows it's a dog."

Compare with:

            la djan birti le du'u ti goi ko'a mlatu
            i ku'i la alis birti le du'u ko'a gerku
            "John is certain that this is a cat, but Ali is certain that
it's a dog."

To me, the sentences using know/djuno sound odd, whereas the
ones using certain/birti sound perfectly acceptable. If you find the
one with "know" normal then we do use "know" differently. If you don't
then you must accept that there's more to "know" than certainty.

> lojban is attractive to me because it seems
>possible to express these gradations of certainty using fuzzy operators
>which directly modify a predicate, rather than requiring multiple separate
>predicates.

Those gradations can be shown, as Bob showed in his recent
summary, with discursives, such as {ju'o} for the certainty scale.
But before doing gradations it is useful for me to understand the
core meaning.

co'o mi'e xorxes