Re: <djuno> & how about <krici>? (Was Knowledge & Belief)

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>>Scientists don't prove theorems. They attempt to disprove hypotheses by
>>empirical means. The harvest of science consists of those hypotheses
>>which are left standing after honest attempts to disprove them fail.
>>Mathematicians and logicians prove theorems.
>
>OK, I grant you not the best explanation of the scientific method.
>Let me present my point another way. You seem to have implied that
>Religion seemed irrational and Science rational. Religion seeks to
>answer certain questions as does Science. Religion relies on faith in
>holy writ or experience of supernatural beings to answer all questions.

People who are religious find meaning in their life, are part of a
community which provides them with support, and contribute to the
betterment of our society. I am not sure what it means for a religion to be
seeking to answer certain questions, or for science to be seeking to answer
certain questions. What do you mean by this? You appear to be using science
to mean several different things, which is confusing in this discussion.

>>Experiments are not
>>used to prove or disprove theorems. Experiments are used to test
>>hypotheses. No faith is necessary. If one's thinking, instruments, or
>>analysis is flawed, the process of science will eventually uncover the
>>flaw, and correct it. Of course, you might be long dead when the flaw is
>>discovered.
>
>OK, while I accept your correction of my description of science, faith
>does exist in science. Scientists still act as if a given theorem
>which has stood the test of time "is" true, especially it's predictions
>seem accurate.

Theorems can be true. Theorems are mathematical constructs based on
postulates and undefined terms. It is OK for a scientist to believe that a
theorem is true (assuming that there is a valid proof.) It is an error for
a scientist to believe that a theory is true. As Einstein said, "No number
of experiments can prove my theory true. One experiment could prove it
false."

>The faith part comes in when scientists keep acting
>as if a theory is true when some later experiment seems to disprove it.
>A given theory does not get replaced until those who keep the faith
>die or retire (see Kuhn's book on the history of science).


I have read Kuhn. He was discussing paradigm shifts. The difficulty with
letting go of a theory is not that scientists believe that a given theory
is undeniably true, but rather that they doubt that the contrary evidence
is definitive. Certainly any scientist worth his salt would admit that the
history of science is typified by old theories being replaced by new ones.
That's why they are in the business. To find and fail to disprove
interesting, useful new theories.

>>>As I said, some dispute about what "justified means, exists. However,
>>>in epistemology one usually restricts the meaning of the word knowledge
>>>to "justified true beliefs" where justified includes direct observation
>>>_and_ logical arguments.
>>
>>Observation is subject to error. Ever seen a magic show?
>
>Irrelevant. I was not making an assertion about "knowledge", but
>presenting a standard encyclopedia-type description of what "justified"
>refers to in the context of "knowledge" in epistemology.

Sorry, you've lost me. I'm afraid I am getting tangled up in English
symantics. What is a "justified true belief" in lojban?
>
>I would hope that we can simply use djuno in the sense which the
>gismu list on the web page seems to imply, the epistemological -
>"justified true beliefs". That would include beliefs with a basis in
>direct observation and logical argument.

You are welcome to use <djuno> any way you wish. There are no language
police in lojbanistan.

>Observation, even refined with instruments has flaws, as does reason
>no matter how precise the logical tools. One can never ever get that
>100% total certainty, in a finite amount of time. So, "absolute knowing"
>cannot possibly ever exist, so trying to reserve the
>word djuno for Absolute knowledge seems rather pointless.

I have not done this. Rob and others seem to have misunderstood my point,
which is that:

<da djuno du'u de djuno> is a very odd, jarring phrase, and seems to be not
the best way to say what one means.

co'omi'e la stivn

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria