Re: more epistemic perversity

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

Lojbab:
>No, because jinvi says that the se jinvi is an opinion, and that therefore
>the question of x3 is one on which people might reasonably be *expected* to
>differ.  It is not merely my opinion that I have 2 kids - I KNOW that I
have
>two kids, and furthermore i think that few would debate that knowledge.

We are in complete agreement here.

> On
>the other hand, I also accept that there are epistemologies which COULD
lead
>to differing knowledge.

For example, if John dreams that you have only one child, you will
claim:

    la djan djuno le du'u mi rirni pa da kei fo le nu senva
    John knows that I have only one child because he had a dream.

It's definitely not how I would say it.

 >The typical x4 for MOST people discussing knowledge is not a subjective
one.
>Typical != default though, since there are people who take faith, or
certain
>assumptions, as being valid epistemologies, and I do not want Lojban's
djuno
>to exclude them.

Does English's "know" exclude those people? I find it hard to believe that
a given word in a language would exclude people for believing something
or other.

>>                ju'o ta mlatu
 >>                la lojbab birti le du'u ta mlatu
 >
>Note that the other end of the ju'o scale is "impossibility" - this points
>to the "certainty" there as being something other than "emotionally
>convinced that".

I'm still confused as to why you think {birti} has to do only with
emotions. Is this another one of your intentions that didn't make
it explicitly into the gi'uste?

>>                i ku'i la lojbab srera i ta na mlatu
>
>.i ku'i ba'e ca'e ta mlatu .iseni'ibo mi djuno le du'u ta mlatu fo lenu mi
>smuni catni                                                    ^kei
>to mi se cmene la xumptidumptis. toi

i do ka'e sevzi la xumptidumptis a la lojbab iseju ta noi gerku na mlatu

>>But why do you want to call your opinions/assumptions/beliefs/assertions
>>knowledge? If you wanted a general word for those then you shouldn't have
>>used an English word that already has a different meaning.
>
>The Engl;ish word DOES have that meaning to some, and perhaps many people.
>If you assume an objectively knowable universe, then we would have no
argument,
>butpostmodernists and biblical literalists do not presume that all
>knowledge is objective (or that only objective truth can be called
"knowable"),
>and I am suyre that there are other classes of people who hold to
subjectivity
>as the default assumption.

But those people don't call that "knowledge" opinions! They don't
say: "I think that it will rain, therefore I know that it will rain by my
opinion".

>My opinions are knolwedge iff I put jinvi in the x4.

That's what you keep claiming, but that doesn't follow from the gi'uste
definition of {djuno}.

>If you want to limit your conversations
>only to rationalists who never base their knowledge on subjective sources,
>go ahead.

I don't want to so limit my conversations. I don't so limit them in English
or in Spanish either. I don't see the connection.

> But then maybe astrophsyics isn't your field, since most
>astrophysical knowledge is quite subjective,beimg based on subjective human
>observations, and interpretations of observations by subjective humans
basing
>their interpretations on subjective human theories.

I don't have anything against subjective human theories. You make
the strangest extrapolations.

> We will never
>"know" anything about the Big Bang or the times following it if we are
>limited only to objective truth.

?!?

>But we don't say that scientists opine scientific knowledge; we say they
KNOW
>it, even while recognizing that according to the scientific method nothing
is
>ever proven - merely made evident to some level of "convincing", but always
>capable of being disproven by the next test.

We already went through this before. Of course people make new discoveries.
People can recognize that what was once believed to be true no longer is
so recognized. Or what some people regard as true others don't. So what?

>I would rather be able to use "djuno" for scientific discussions, but your
>definition would require me to use "jinvi".

Nope. "My" definition would let you use {djuno} where you use "know"
in those scientific discussions.

co'o mi'e xorxes