Re: spistemological justification

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>You can use ANY kind of justification, whether logical or illogical
>>in x4 of djuno.  My son knows Santa Claus exists by irrational justification,
>>and he probably knows Santa Claus doesn't exist because his friends have
>--More--
>>told him that Santa Claus is really Papa.  As a result of contradictory
>>facts obtained by different epistemologies, he is probably not birti
>>(certain) that Santa Claus exists.  He may judge amongst those contradictory
>>epistemologies to form a se jinvi opinion regarding the existence of
>>Santa.  Or he may at other times simply forgo analytical considetrations and
>>simply krici that Santa Claus exists without attemtping to justify it via
>>an epistemology.  (in that sense nu krici itself can be an epistemology
>>for the x4 of djuno).
>
>I entirely agree. And the Santa Claus example is a good one. But this is
>not relevant to what happens when the X4 place is left empty. I assert that
>this place is implicitly understood to be the nearest relevant
>epistemology. The problem is understanding what it means to know what
>someone else knows. I'm not sure this makes sense in lojban without
>specifying an x4 place for <djuno>.

I don't think it is possible to specify what the implied referent is for
ANY ellipsized place is without having a full context.  There are certainly
no rules that say thatx4 has to be the "naerest relevant epistemology"
(I'm not entirely sure what that phrase means, in any event).
If I omit the epistemology and the knowedge pertains to internal states,
the you can hypothesize that I am probably using some form of empathy or
personal authority of the "knower" as the epsitemological basis.  But since
there is no proof that telepathy is impossible, I would not consider
that hypothesis to be "truth".

Now your last sentence COULD be taken to agree with me that djuno requires
an x4 place and probably cannot be fully understood withput it.

lojbab