Re: knowledge and belief

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

>> Jorge suggests that the x4 place is superfluous;
>
>Jorge?  Is that really what you're suggesting?  If so,
>I disagree.  How can anyone know anything except by some
>epistemology?

There seems to be some confusion as to what is an
epistemology. In some examples, it seems to be taken
as the way by which something gets to be known.
In other cases it is the theory or lore within which
something is a fact. For example:

            le du'u li re sumji li pa li pa cu jetnu le cmaci
            That one plus one is two is true in mathematics.

            la djan djuno le du'u li re sumji li pa li pa kei fo le cmaci
            John knows that 1+1=2 in mathematics.

            la djin toldjuno le du'u li re sumji li pa li pa kei fo le cmaci
            Gene ignores that 1+1=2 in mathematics.

Obviously in those examples the epistemology has nothing
to do with how John came to the knowledge or why Gene
came to be ignorant of that fact. The epistemology has to do
with the realm within which the fact is true, not with the
method by which the knower came to know it. That's why
I'm confused by "epistemologies" that only say how the
knower came across the fact.

co'o mi'e xorxes




>
>> 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.  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}.
>
>co'omi'e markl.
>