Re: knowledge and belief

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

>>So you agree that if I say {mi djuno ko'a}, then that entails that
>>I think {ko'a jetnu}? That's at least something. Did I interpret
>>your words correctly?
>
>Yes proviuded thatdjuno and jetnu have identical ellipsized
"epistemologies".

Of course. I'm glad we're finally agreeing.

>>Now what about in other than the first person? If I say {la djan
>>djuno ko'a}, do I need to think that {ko'a jetnu},
>
>Again it depends on having the same epistemology,

Yes, I meant with the same epistemology.

>and then in this case it
>depends on the specific epistemology.  If I have no access to ko'a s
>epistemology for la djan, then I may not know whether ko'a jetnu is valid.

But if you have no access to the epistemology, how do you know
that djuno is valid? If you claim djuno, then you must know by what
epistemology you're claiming that djuno holds.

>If you were to explain some arbitrary fact about the Spanish language as
>spoken in Argentina (call that fact ko'a) and told it to me, I might say
>"Jorge knows that ko'a is true by native speaker knowledge".  But I
>could not then say after you told me it that >I< know that ko'a is
>tru by native speaker knowledge.

If you can't say that it's true by that epistemology, then you should
not claim that I know it. Otherwise we're back to the odd claims
like: Jorge knows that X but Pablo knows that not X, both "by native
speaker knowledge".  That, in English, doesn't sound right. Would
that be ok with djuno? I don't think so.

>>I< know it by your aythority.
>Now is ko'a "true" i.e. jetnu.  Hopefully so.  But if it turned out that
>you oversimplified in telling me the rule, or even erred because you did
>not think of some aspect of the issue that another native speaker would
>recognize, then what I say you know, and what I say I know because you told
>me, is actually false.

But then you were wrong in saying that I knew and that you knew,
weren't you?

 >>Right, but {djuno} is not just {birti}, is it? The x2 of djuno has to be
>>jetnu, whereas the x2 of birti need not be.
>
>birti is an emotion word,

I'm not sure what you mean by that. You can't be certain of something
due to rational thought? It has to be a feeling? Is {senpi} also an
emotion word?

>It is probably more akin to a strong krici
>than it is to djuno.  But birti doesn't suggest lack of evidence, and hence
>COULD be used for cases of krici, jinvi, AND djuno.

My point was that {djuno} has more to it than certainty. I suppose
you agree with that. What does it have in addition to certainty?
The presupposition or entailment that what is known is also true
(by the same epistemology, yes).

>>Ok, change the speaker to the context. The context in which the djuno
>>assertion is made has to be such that the respective jetnu assertion
>>(same predicate, same epistemology) also holds.
>
>This is true for rational epistemologies (I think), but they are not the
only
>kind that can be discussed with Lojban.

I believe you. {ro gerku cu mlatu} is true by some epistemologies, right?

>BY the way, if you bring in birti for contrast with djuno, you should also
>lokk at jimpe for contrast.  jimpe has a place strcuture ije djuno but
without
> the epistemology place.

 "Understand" has a wide range of meaning in English. Does {jimpe}
cover the same range?

co'o mi'e xorxes