Re: Knowledge and Belief

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

At 05:31 PM 1/8/98 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>Maybe they do. If the x4 place of <djuno> can be <le nu viska>, then I
>see no reason that the x2 place of <jetnu> can't be <le nu viska> But
>it is not clear to me how <djuno> differs from <krici>.

mi cu jimpe le du'u ca'a djuno le facti .i mi na jimpe le du'u ca'a djuno
le krici

Which I hope means something like, "I can comprehend a statement of I
actually know facts. I cannot comprehend a statement of I actually know
beliefs".

Whether or not one must use the x4 place of seems unclear because, one
person may see an implied epstemology while another cannot. Additionally
the use of djuno seems unclear because of the vagueness of what any one
persona may consider a fact. A fact has more a social ontology than an
absolute incontravertable one.

However, to me, this simply reflects the common arguments in the field of
epistemology regarding what the word knowlegde should refer to.

The way the place structure reads:

x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4

implies that one should supply an epistemology if you do not feel sure
that the speaker will understand how you know x2.

le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro ba'o renro le bolci

Make sense to me if you say it to me, at the ball game while we
both watch the catcher catch the ball. Since obviously, the catcher
could not have caught the ball, without knowing the pitcher threw it,
other than thru some odd synchronicity.

If I were to explaining this to someone else, who did not attend
the ball game, after the ball game was over, then again it has some
demonstrative context. Since, I would have obviously seen it. However,
outside those contexts the meaning looses its clear demonstrative
value, and starts to seem ambiguous to me.

But know I wonder how we've come so far afield. I thought that the
problem Steven had was with a statement like "mi djuno le nanmu
djuno..."?

Getting back to that. If I were to say, in the context of a base ball
game: mi cu djuno lo du'u le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro ba'o renro
le bolci (given that I translated that right), then I think it makes
sense. Because, I will have directly observed the catcher catching the
ball, or attempting to catch the ball, and obviously the catcher would
do neither of those things, if he/she had not seen the pitcher throw it.

Could not the default value, for x4 almost always be direct observation
in these cases? If the speaker does not directly observe the event, then
should not one supply a x4 for djuno to provide their argument as to why
they know someone else knows something? Especially, given the main goal
in providing an unambiguous grammer in lojban is to ensure clear
communication, correct?

How often is one justified in assuming that when you speak the listener
will have the same unspecified assumptions, as you do? Especially, when
the subject matter falls under the heading of epistemology, where nothing
seems clear and definite.


Rob Z.

--------------------------------------------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx