Re: knowledge and belief

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>Lojbab:

>>I was talking with Nora about the knowledge thread.  the xistence of
the

>>epistemolgy place means that "djuno" probably means "is convinced
that"

>>as much as "knows".  "djuno would overlap "birti" more than "krici"

>>except for the emotive nature of birti.  "birti" might more clearly

>>be glossed as "trusts that".

>

>Why would we want to change the meaning of {djuno} at this stage?

>Neither the current definition nor the usage up until now support the

>idea that {djuno} means "is convinced that". The big difference
between

>that and "knows that" being that to be convinced of something that

>something need not be true, while to know something requires

>it to be true.


I am not sure what you mean by true. Are you suggesting that the
standard epistemology of humans is that there is that an absolute
standard of knowledge is possible/existent? If so, I am not an adherent
to the standard epistemology. The fact that there is an x4 place in
<<djuno> suggests that the intent was to make it possible to specify a
criteria for <<djuno> which is not necessarily absolute. Thus, lojbab's
suggestion is really not a change, rather it is a clarification of the
English gloss in the definition, which is
confusing/misleading/incomplete (IMHO). If you "know" something, you do
so "because of" something else. "I know that Jorge knows that lojbab
went to the store, because he was looking right at him." "I know that
she made it to the airport because the bus always gets there before
noon." What do you think of my proposed "clearer" definition for
<<djuno>?:


current:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>djuno</bigger></bigger=
></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>
[ jun ju'o ] knowx1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by=20

epistemology x4 [words usable for epistemology typically have a du'u=20

place; know how to - implying knowledge of method but not necessarily=20

having the ability to practice (=3D tadjyju'o)] (cf. know/familiar with:


se slabu, na'e cnino, na'e fange; cmavo list du'o, cilre, certu, facki,


jijnu, jimpe, senpi, smadi, kakne, birti, mipri, morji, saske, viska)


</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>change to:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>djuno</bigger></bigger=
></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>
[ jun ju'o ] know x1 is convinced of (knows) fact(s) x2 (du'u) about
subject x3 by=20

criteria/schema/standard/epistemology x4 [words usable for criteria
typically have a du'u=20

place; because of - according to criteria (cf. know/familiar with:=20

se slabu, na'e cnino, na'e fange; cmavo list du'o, cilre, certu, facki,


jijnu, jimpe, senpi, smadi, kakne, birti, mipri, morji, saske,
viska)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>.


>

>> Nora cited the example of PGP keys,

>>where one may "know" a key for someone via some means, but the key

>>could still be wrong, with "birti" applyiong to the trustedness of
the key.


PGP stands for "Pretty Good Privacy" This is software which does public
key encryption, which allows people to send virtually unbreakable
encrypted information to each other.



>

>I don't know what PGP keys are, but in any case "to know a key" would

>not be translated with {djuno}, which means to know a fact. Probably

>you would have to use {selsau}.

>


I think <<djuno> would be the best way to describe "knowing a key". The
key in this case is a string of digits which represent a prime factor
of a large number. A number is a "fact".


co'omi'e la stivn



Steven Belknap, M.D.

Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria