Re: more epistemic perversity

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

>    la djan djuno le du'u mi rirni pa da kei fo le nu senva
>    John knows that I have only one child because he had a dream.
>
>It's definitely not how I would say it.

The kidnap victims mother knows her child is still alive on the basis of
her dreams.
>>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'm still confused as to why you think {birti} has to do only with
>emotions. Is this another one of your intentions that didn't make
>it explicitly into the gi'uste?

It has to do with the division of semantic space that I used as the basis for
deciding on which gismu to include, and what their place structures should
be.  No this is not in the gismu list, which was originally written SOLELY as
an input file for LogFlash.  There was not sufficient space to get into
semantic discussions, and it was not considered that semantics was going to
be prescribed by the baseline.  But since people seem to be thinking that
the paritcular English words I chose are heavily frought with
semantic
import, as opposed to merely pointing the direction towards the meaning and
sevring as memory hooks, then my original intent becomes lost in the
non-documentation and has less status than the words I (rather haphazardly)
chose.  My only altrernative is to speak up strongly as to what my intent was
when someone asks about semantics, but what the Lojban will come to mean now
seems likely to be relatively independent of that intent.

In this case (birti), I look at the contrast with djuno and krici, which I
consoider to be the closest words, semantically.  djuno is justified, and
true-to-the-knower, on the basis of some identifiable epistemology.  krici
is pure belief, whether or not and indeed perhaps in spite of evidence.
Now what is a claim of certaint
y?  is it just a claim of strong belief?
If so, there would be little justification for having it in the gismu li
st.
But there is nothing in the place structure that suggests any other meaning,
and indeed I could not think of a usage for certainty (using only the two

places and dependent only on them) that meant something other than a very

strong belief.

belief, on the other hand, has two meanings - one relating to what we think th

true based on all the epistemological bases that we have available to us, but

independent of actual truth.  This is most akin to "certinty".  The other
definition of belief commonly ised is that associated with religious belief,
which is a kind of epistemology in itself - a combination of internal
experiences and outside sources.  A
 synonym used mostly in religious contexts
is "faith", but we have beliefs other than those associated with religion.
The commonalty of beliefs is that they are held whether or not, and ofte
n
in spite of countering evidence.  Thus, I intended that krici meant this sort
of belief.  I think that I did a better job of conveying this intent wit
h
krici than with the other words.

As a shorthand for the intended comparison and contrast of meanings I am using
here, I took advantage of earlier thesaurus work, especially by Veijo, and
the gismu have a bunch of "cf." notes added to indicate that comparison with
other gismu are needed to determine meaning.

But note that krici and birti both refer to internal states independent of
evidence.  No one can know another's internal state, and internal states are
largely colored by emotion.  I have used this argument before in regards to
the se'i/se'inai, and empathy attitudinals.  In particular, I don;t t
hink that
we would ever say that someone was certain of something if they denied it.
So birti seems by implication to be at the extreme of an internal state and
hence  mostly emotive.  We can on the other hand sometimes attribute belief to
someone on the basis of external evidence - we attroibute certain beliefs to
people who call themselves "Christians" without having access to their
internal states.  We also
can believe in contradictory things, while i
don't think we can be certain of contradictory things.  Sokrici is again
distinguished from some purely internal and emotively dominated state.  But
krici, being indpendent of evidence, is still a subjective determination on
the part of le krici.

Getting back to djuno - it differs from both birti and krici in that it has
an x4 epistemology.  That is its primary distinction in terms of place
structure - thus the epistemology must be important metaphsyically to its
definition.  It is still an internal state, but now we ahve to provide some
explicit sense of the basis for the knowledge.  "Knowing" is usually seen as
being as strong as "certainty", so the contrast is primarily between

birti and djuno - krici ends up being just another epistemology that might
go in the x4.  But knowing is still an internal state albeit one that has
the
judgement associate with attributing a basis to that knowledge.

Now if George says "I know X", how does John report this.  he can say that
"George says that he knows X".  But if knowledge is an internal state not judgea
ble by others, then "george says that he knows X, b
ut he doesn't" means that
we are accusing George of lying about his internal state.  If George is
presumed to be telling the truth about his internal state then John should be
able to report this fact as "George knows X".

But as I understand it, you would have John's opinion/presumption/knowledge
somehow enter into the definition of djuno, without any justification based on t
heplace structure - so that John could not say "George knows X" unless John
also can say "I know X" or at least "I assume X" whioch in the case of djuno
could be stated in the x4 of John's claim of self-knolwedge.

Your argument seems to be str
You have cited
various wording choices as the basis for your belief about the
meaning of djuno, but those choices were made for other r
easons.  For example
the word "fact" used to describe x2 has nothing to do with fatci, but is a
codeword for "you need to put a du'u abstraction in here".  I would not use
"proposition" which you might consider the logically correct term for a du'u
because it is longer, and most people don't know what it means anyway - but
they accept that fact can  include factoids and other data that are still
disputable in English.  You have also largely based your case on arguments
asosciated with objective facts - things that indeed most people can agree are
true such as numbers of children and dates of armistices.

BUt people use the word "know" for other things that are not OBJECTIVELY
knowable.  Whether there is a God, where someone loves someone else.
These are things that we say we "know", and they are things that we sometime
s
say that other people "know", though I agree that we are more likely to couch
the statement in terms of "believe" if indeed we ourselves do not share the
presumption of truth.  But that sense of "believe" do
esn't apply to krici,
which is a different and particular kind of belief.
 - one which is independent
of evidence.

jinvi comes in here at this point,
 though it was added mostly to cover the
other sense of English "think" from "pensi".  The key word used here was
"opine", and opinions are generally held on some basis, as consrasted with
krici which need not.  But opinions are restricted to areas that are
subjective, where truth is not  agreed upon univerdsally even using th
e same
bassi.  So I do not see jinvi contrasted with djuno - that is
not where it
entered the language, and not how it is defined.
>>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.
>
>But those people don't call that "knowledge" opinions! They don't
>say: "I think that it will rain, therefore I know that it will rain by my
>opinion".

But they might say "I know it will rain." without anyy qualification.  And
if you ask them how they know, they will sna
answer you.  The English word "know"
does not require or imply a "by X", but djuno does.  But people use the
English word know as if it had such a requirement, because they will be able
to accept the question "how?" as meaningful, I think in all cases.
This is
not the case for "believe" or "be certain", where "how?" or "why?" are not
always meaningful.

>>My opinions are knolwedge iff I put jinvi in the x4.
>
>That's what you keep claiming, but that doesn't follow from the gi'uste
>definition of {djuno}.

How does it not follow?  If I  claim to know it, and the basis for my claim
 is
subjective jusgement about the evidence then, and jinvi is indicated to be a
kind of epistemology, then there is no reason why it cannot be so stated.
Your arguments seem to be stated based on a speaker other-than le djuno,
whose own opinion as to truth is somehow relevant.  But there is no basis for
such an assumption in the gismu list definition either.

>> 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.
>
>I don't have anything against subjective human theories. You make
>the strangest extrapolations.

The "perfect" scientist according to the scientific method, never pr
esumes
that anything is "true", only that it has not been proven false.  If you
require the presumption of truth, then no such scientist can ever use djuno
, because the scientist is unwilling to make such a presumption.

>We already went through this before. Of course people make new discoveries.
>People can recognize that what was once believed to be true no longer is
>so recognized. Or what some people regard as true others don't. So what?

I don't think that this can work, especially in a language without mandatory
tense, for which tensed statements thus have strong meaning.

I can say
mi djuno le du'u so da cu plini le solri
and provided that no new planets are discovered during my life, this will be
true throughout my life after 4th grade when I first learned this factoid.

I think it is reasonably safe to say that most others consider the sa
me to be true (barring recent discoveries that may indicate planet-like objects
 beyond
Pluto).  So most people would say
la lojbab djuno le du'u so da cu plini le solri

After I die, people will be able to report this as
la lojbab pu djuno le du'u so da cu plini le solri

because after I die, la lojbab ca djuno noda
barring consideration of an afterlife.

But you are claiming that if by some chance after I die that a tenth
planet is discovered, that
la lojbab pu djuno le du'u so da cu plini le solri

somehow becomes false


You would apparently have to relegate my former knowledge to krici, or jinvi,
or birti or something else, even though no one while I was alive would say
that this was necessary.

I submit that the meaning of
la lojbab pu djuno le du'u so da cu plini le solri

should not change depending on externalities such as what some peop
le may
possibly find out at some future time.  It is a report on what my
internal state was at the time implied by pu, including the epistemology
on which I based that state.

You seem to think otherwise.

>>I would rather be able to use "djuno" for scientific discussions, but your
>>definition would require me to use "jinvi".
>
>Nope. "My" definition would let you use {djuno} where you use "know"
>in those scientific discussions.

But not after the fact, when some new knolwedge unrelated to the orig
inal
knower or to his epistemology comes into play.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.