Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

la .rab. .zuk. cusku di'e

> This regresses epistemology back to absolute truth, which will never
> seem like a tenable position. Truth only makes sense as a measurable
> quantity, and as such only has meaning relative to the instrument
> (i.e. system of knowledge) that you measure it with.

There are other truths beside measurement-truth, such as definition-truth,
convention-truth, etc.  When talking about truth here I leave the
basis for the truth vague, because that vagueness can be copied directly
from the x2 of jetnu to the x4 of djuno.  The only exception is
"belief-truth", in which the difference between knowledge and
belief is reduced to a nullity.

> Within the system of knowledge that Sam and Frank used was it
> a justified true belief (did they have any reason beyond the normal
> to doubt the truth of the newspapers report)?

It was a justified *false* belief, because the newspaper report was
false.  I see no reason to think that Sam and Frank had a system
of knowledge containing a rule "Anything that is printed in the
newspaper is true".

> If not, then within
> that system it was true and justified, and thus knowledge. The
> system you persist in regarding the situation should be regarded
> as seperated and more inclusive from the one Sam and Frank evaluated
> it from.

The point is that when they arrived on Bermuda, the justified false
belief had become a justified true one, but they hadn't *learned*
anything.  Therefore, their justified true belief on 12 November
doesn't count as *knowledge*.

la .and. cusku di'e
 
> >I don't know whether I agree or not. Either way, this point is
> >a refinement of my more general point, which is that DJUNO means
> >"know" AND has a metaphysics place.

So it is.
 
> >We can then go on to discuss what *precisely* counts as knowledge,
> >but it ceases to be a Lojban-specific issue (except to the extent
> >that DJUNO involves knowledge).

If "djuno" doesn't involve knowledge, then what does it involve?
I haven't even introduced, he said with a malicious grin, Nozick's
four-point definition of knowledge, viz:

	A knows p iff:
		1) A believes p;
		2) p is true;
		3) if p were false, then A wouldn't believe it;
		4) if p were true, then A would believe it.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)