Re: Knowledge & Belief

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1998-01-01 13:27, Steven Belknap wrote:

>It seems to me that one must either fuzzify <djuno> with
><jei>, specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge is
>claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am," such as:
...

Oh, so "djuno" implies '_certain_ knowledge' now? Bear in mind that the
range of things one might have non-fuzzily justifiably certain knowledge
of is extremely limited, and wouldn't include your 'possibly true' example

     "Steven knows that Jorge asserts that Lojbab goes to the store."

since Steven can never rule out having misheard, etc. Your definition of
"djuno" doesn't seem particularly useful, and I would suggest that one
matching a more usual English definition of 'know' (as indeed the
gismu-list suggests) might be better.

In any case, I think there are very few fields of discourse in which one
can assume that every assertion will be perfectly true or false
(mathematical proof is one, no others come to mind). Everywhere else, one
has to allow for fuzziness, so it's nothing special for assertions
involving "djuno" to be fuzzy any more than those involving "crino".

--
fe'oca'emi'e tricrfraksizeicecmu .iji'a ca'emi'e .aclin.