Re: knowledge and belief

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Rob Zook wrote:

> >What we're saying is that "x1 knows that x2 at time X" and "x2 is false" are
> >contradictory statements.  If x2 turns out to be false, then x1 didn't
> >know x2 at any time, no matter what x1 or anyone else believed at time X.
> 
> Then in Lojban terms it seems you want to mix a jetnu claim and a fatcu
> claim. That seems like a main problem here. Again I think we must
> regard truth as a measurable quantity relative to the instrument or
> it makes no sense.

Not so.  I will rephrase as "x1 knows that x2 at time X by
system S" and "not-x2 is true by system S".  These two are
contradictory, unless there are specific magical references to
time within system S that cause the statements to cancel out,
such as "S = statements believed false by x1 at time X"

> What it looks to me we have here are two camps, one who wants to base
> djuno claims on fatci and one who wants to base djuno claims on jetnu.
> I think the baseline implies jetnu rather than fatci.

So do I, and in fact I belong to the fatci-is-useless clique.
Again, when I say in English that something "is true" or "is false",
I mean with respect to an unspecified but internally consistent
truth model.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)