Re: knowledge and belief

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

cu'u la stivn
>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?

No, I don't think I'm suggesting that. If I say {ta blanu} then I'm not
suggesting that there is an absolute standard of blueness. All I need
is that there is a general consensus among the speakers of the
language as to what qualifies as blanu, which as you well know
will not be absolute since there will inevitably be borderline doubtful
cases. Similarly, if I say {la djan djuno ko'a} I'm not suggesting an
absolute standard of knowledge. All I'm saying is that for me to make
sense, if I say that then I must also believe that {ko'a jetnu}. By
whatever standard and to whatever degree of certainty. Knowing
requires the truth of what is known, being convinced does not
require truth. "John is convinced that lojbab went to the market,
but lojbab didn't go to the market" is a perfectly sensical sentence.
"John knows that lojbab went to the market, but lojbab didn't go
to the market" is not. I'm saying that the same thing should
happen in Lojban with {djuno} if it means "knows".

> 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."

Wouldn't those use {ki'u}?

>What do you think of my proposed "clearer" definition for
><<djuno>?:

I had some trouble reading it because my mail reader doesn't
seem to interpret those formatting commands:

><bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger>djuno</bigger></bigge
r=
>></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>.

But I don't think "being convinced" is the same as "knowing". This
would amount to a change. I don't oppose changes in principle,
but I don't see the point for this one.


>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.

Oops, I also misunderstood Mark's explanation then.


>>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".

If you mean:

        djuno le du'u makau te mifra
        "knows what is the code"

then I agree. If you mean {djuno le te mifra}, then I disagree.

>The
>key in this case is a string of digits which represent a prime factor
>of a large number. A number is a "fact".

Not in the sense I meant it. If you say {mi djuno li ci} I will ask
{do djuno li ci ma} = "You know that three about what?".
To me that doesn't make sense.

co'o mi'e xorxes