knowledge & belief

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

Steven:

>> However, I am struggling with the use of <<djuno>. I fear

>> that you are projecting all


mark:

>All?  Hardly.

>

>> of the various definitions and semantics of the English

>> word "know" on to the lojban word <<djuno>.


My previous email gave the American Heritage Dictionary definition of
the English word know. AHD lists the definitions in order of frequency.
Here are the first three AHD definitions again:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><bigger>1.
</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><bigger>To
perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

<bold>2. </bold>To regard as true beyond doubt: <italic>I know she
won't fail.

</italic><bold>3. </bold>To have a practical understanding of, as
through experience; be skilled in: <italic>knows how to cook.


</italic></bigger></fontfamily>The lojban listing for <<djuno> is
currently:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>djuno</bigger></bigger=
></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>
[ jun ju'o ] knowx1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by=20

epistemology x4 [words usable for epistemology typically have a du'u=20

place; know how to - implying knowledge of method but not necessarily=20

having the ability to practice (=3D tadjyju'o)] (cf. know/familiar with:


se slabu, na'e cnino, na'e fange; cmavo list du'o, cilre, certu, facki,


jijnu, jimpe, senpi, smadi, kakne, birti, mipri, morji, saske, viska)


</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>The current definition of the lojban
<<djuno> seems closest in meaning to the 1st definition in the AHD. It
does *not* mean to regard as true beyond doubt. It does *not* mean to
have the ability to practice. Unfortunately, much of the early
discussion about <<djuno> seemed to use it in a way which was closer to
definition 2 in the AHD. If <<djuno> is actually closer to AHD
definition 1, then everything would be fine, *except* there is this
confusing x4 place where an epistemology is to go. Epistemology seems
too cerebral to cover all the meanings of what should go in x4, as an
epistemology is <fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>"the branch of
philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions
and foundations, and its extent and validity."
Accordingly,</fontfamily>I suggested a replacement definition for
<<djuno> which seems clearer to me:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>djuno</bigger></bigger=
></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>
[ jun ju'o ] know x1 is convinced of (knows) fact(s) x2 (du'u) about
subject x3 by=20

criteria/schema/standard/epistemology x4 [words usable for criteria
typically have a du'u=20

place; because of - according to criteria (cf. know/familiar with:=20

se slabu, na'e cnino, na'e fange; cmavo list du'o, cilre, certu, facki,


jijnu, jimpe, senpi, smadi, kakne, birti, mipri, morji, saske, viska)

</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>>

>Since the Lojban gismu is defined in terms of the English

>word "know", I suppose that some degree of cultural or

>semantic contamination is inevitable, especially in a

>learner like myself.  But I suspect that this is a rather

>peripheral issue with respect to our current debate.


Is it? I was under the impression that lojban was a culturally neutral
language. The dictionary listings are intended as glosses, not true
definitions.


>> But <<djuno> has only one (very terse) definition, is a

>> word in a radically different language, and we are

>> struggling to discover how to use it in a way which is

>> distinct from other gismu, yet still has utility for

>> description of se djuno (knowledge).

>

>Your perception of the way that {djuno} ought to be

>distinct - that it requires {le djuno} to be justified

>in believing {le se djuno} to be true - seems overly

>restrictive to me.  Defined in that way, IMO {djuno} will

>have very little utility.


Does my suggestion for the listing in the lojban dictionary for
<<djuno> seem overly restrictive to you?


>> I am trying to figure out what it tells us about the word;

>> lojbab suggests that le nu visku or similar "epistemologies"

>> will suffice.

>

>My position is closer to lojbab's.=20


Closer than what? I don't follow this. It was Jorge who questioned
lojbab's use of le nu visku. I am willing to accept le nu visku as an
x4 sumti for <<djuno>, if that is what is supposed to be. I am trying
to *understand* what <<djuno> means. I am confused by the definition,
and am seeking to understand.


Indeed, when I suggested

>that a schema might belong in the x4 place, I didn't mean to

>say that schema belongs there _Instead_ of epistemology; I

>meant to suggest that a schema might be one of many acceptable

>epistemologies that could be used as {le ve djuno}.


Yes, as I acknowledged in my proposed new definition. Your suggestion
of allowing schema seems to have merit.


-Steven



Steven Belknap, M.D.

Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria