Re: more epistemic perversity

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Lojbab:
> >The other words relevant to this discussion are not as broadly
>encompassing.
>>krici pertains to believe without necessarily having justification or
>>evidence.
>
>Then {krici} is the most broadly encompassing, isn't it? Anything that you
>djuno you will also krici, but not the other way around.

It is probably the case that anything that you djuno, you will also krici,
though if I win the lottery tomorrow based on a ticket that some stranger
walks up and hands me today, then I won't krici it even when I hold the check
in my hand %^).

The other way round is tricky, since it is possible to use le si'o krici in
the x4 of djuno - knowledge by faith - and with krici in the x4 then krici
implies djuno.  There are people who have faith in the literal truth of the
Bible.  I do not accept that as a valid epistemology, but filling in x4
with krici, I can truthfully say that they djuno it.

>>I feel that Lojban needs a general word usable to report a proposition that
>>someone holds/is convinced/knows which says nothing about what the speaker
>>feels/knows/holds/presumes as truth.
>
>{jinvi} seems to fit the bill. {birtyjinvi} if you want certainty added.

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

Put another way, with jinvi, the same x4 could lead to different x1's
opining different x2s.  With djuno, x4 is tied to x1 more strongly than to
x2, but must lead to x2 barring an idiosyncratically subjective x4 for any
x1.  (Since jinvi, like krici, can be used in the x4 place of djuno, it is
possible to have such idiosyncrasies.)

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.

>>I intended that to be djuno, and
>>its use elsewhere in the language design is consistent with that meaning
>>
>>du'o, the BAI cmavo based on djuno, means "according to" - thus saying
>>that the x1 of djuno is the one who is "presuming truth" if anyone is.
>
>This is the first argument you give that makes sense to me. Indeed
>"according to" seems like the x1 of {jinvi} rather than of {djuno}, so if
>the link between BAIs and gismu is strict we do seeem to have an
>inconsistency there.

Only if the words mean what you think they mean %^)

>>We also have ju'o, used to express "certainty" as contrasted with "ia"
>>whcih expresses belief.  I see djuno and birti as being closely related,
>>with birti being an emotional claim, whereas djuno is a justified claim.
>
>This is no argument. First, there is no formal link between UI
>and gismu. Second, as you say the link of {ju'o} would be with
>the meaning of {birti}, so it doesn't tell us anything about {djuno}.

I did not say it is proof of anything - it is evidence of my intent and
understanding of djuno that I considered it valid as a source for ju'o
and for du'o.

>I don't agree. If you say:
>
>                ia ta mlatu
>                pe'i ta mlatu
>                ju'o ta mlatu
>                ju'a ta mlatu
>
>then I will report respectively:
>
>                la lojbab krici le du'u ta mlatu
>                la lojbab jinvi le du'u ta mlatu
>                la lojbab birti le du'u ta mlatu
>                la lojbab xusra 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 would say that "certainty" is more of a "100% probability"
though I worry that we will wander over into fuzzy logic and/or probability
 theory if we play with this too much.

>and if it is not a cat I will add:
>
>                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
>>All that should matter reagrding MY knowledge is whether >I< think
>>it is true, and not whether I can convince someone else of that truth.
>
>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.

My opinions are knolwedge iff I put jinvi in the x4.  My beliefs are
knolwedge if I put krici in the x4.  If you want to limit your conversations
only to rationalists who never base their knowledge on subjective sources,
go ahead.  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.  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.

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

lojbab