Re: knowledge, lojban and English

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

Lojbab:
>Maybe the hangup I am having is with this word "presupposition"
>If you means omething like the "default" as in default quantifier then
>it is iffy.

No, I don't think I mean that.

> The problem with presuppositions is that they have
>to have a presupposer, and we seem to be arguing about who
> the presupposer is.

The problem with claims is that they have to have a claimer.
 Is that really a problem?

>If the presupposer = the knower x1 of djuno, then I can agree with you and
>the issue can be settled.

The one who knows that X is true has to know that X is true, yes, but
the one that claims that someone knows that X is true has to believe
that X is true as well.

>But where the issue arises between us is what happens when the person
stating
>a djuno claim is not the "knower", and while he recognizes that le djuno is
>presupposing truth, the speaker does not presuppose that truth and is
either
>agnostic, or even disagrees with that presupposition.  You are correct that
>in English we OFTEN don't use "know" for such cases, but instead use one
>of the softer words that imply non-truth from the speaker's point of
>view, including "consider" and "opine and "think" and "believe".

It's not just that we often don't use it. It would be unacceptable to use
it in most such cases. You'd be misunderstood if you used it.

>The key point here is that djuno and the common meaning of "know" differ
>most significantly when there is a subjective basis for truth and the
>speaker does not agree with the knower, OR takes note of the subjectivity
>and (in English at least) chooses a different word.  In Lojban there is
>no need to choose a different word from djuno, because the epistemology can
>be described as subjective failrly easily.

But the subjective manner in which x1 comes to know x2 is
independent of the truth of x2. x1 cannot come to know that x2 is true
by any means if x2 is not true.

> English "know" does not have a
>required or even implied statement of epistemology, and indeed to bring in
>eopistemology requires wordiness or vagueness as to what exactly you are
>bringing in (e.g. "because" - which usually not a lead-in to epistemology
in
>English, but might be for "know").

So according to you the only difference between {djuno} and {jinvi} is
the degree of certainty that the x1 has about the x2? Why not just use
{birti je jinvi} for your meaning? If that's the meaning of {djuno}, then
using the gloss "know" is very misleading.

co'o mi'e xorxes