[Thom T G]

This is a show of hands of sort, not a pragmatic test of truth, to discover a statistic, a quantity about a population of a class, namely, the class of Objectivists on OL who ever thought about the implications of logic for any learning through reading.

Suppose you are reading a serious scientific article in a research journal from a credible scientist in the field. You are reading along, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and then you chance upon this:

	T2: "Some gfds are gfds."

Knowing from the context that "gfds" is not a symbol standing for any other variable, and finding that it is not referenced thereafter in the refereed article, how are you to interpret T2, given your integrated knowledge of science, logic, and Objectivist epistemology?

Would you say that T2 is true? Why? False? Why? Or meaningless? Why?

[Michael E. Marotta]

Thom T G, on May 9 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

	T2: "Some gfds are gfds."

Would you say that T2 is true? Why? False? Why? Or meaningless? Why?

I went for meaningless because I am open-minded and allowing of ambiguity. Strictly, the statement is false, but I accept that "gfds" might have some contextual meaning that would allow a vernacular understanding, though, if so, that is not explained. Therefore, I chose "meaningless."

Logically, it is false.
All A is A.
It is true that "some" A is A -- this A that A ... these here, those there... All A are A one or a few a time.
(So, I could have chosen True on that basis.)
But
Some A is A implies that some A are non-A and that is nonsense.

As for the ambiguous, consider: "Some Americans are Americans."
Some citizens of the United States are resiidents of Honduras.
Some residents of the United States are not citizens of the United States.
On our way to the polling place, I discovered that some of my neighbors don't meet my definition a loyal, patriotic American, so I was happy come back home and log in to Objectivist Living.

This post has been edited by Michael E. Marotta: 09 May 2009 - 08:43 PM

[Selene]

You had an election today in Michigan?

Or is that part of the illustration.

"On our way to the polling place, I discovered that some of my neighbors don't meet my definition a loyal, patriotic American, so I was happy come back home and log in to Objectivist Living."

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thom,

I didn't vote.

Anyway, this kind of thing makes my eyes glaze over.



Just one question in your hypothetical. Does gfd have only one meaning or does it have more than one? Or does it mean nothing at all?

Depending on the meaning of gfd (or lack thereof), the answer will be different in each case.

Gfd is only a word (or symbol). Words cannot be true or false. Once concepts can.

Michael

[general semanticist]

Poll - Some people think syllogisms are useful. True or false?

[Thom T G]

Michael E. Marotta, on May 9 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

Thom T G, on May 9 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

	T2: "Some gfds are gfds."

Would you say that T2 is true? Why? False? Why? Or meaningless? Why?

I went for meaningless because I am open-minded and allowing of ambiguity. Strictly, the statement is false, but I accept that "gfds" might have some contextual meaning that would allow a vernacular understanding, though, if so, that is not explained. Therefore, I chose "meaningless."

Logically, it is false.
[...]

Michael (MEM),

I don't follow. You think T2 is logically false, but you voted meaningless?

[Thom T G]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 9 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

Thom,

I didn't vote.

Anyway, this kind of thing makes my eyes glaze over.



Just one question in your hypothetical. Does gfd have only one meaning or does it have more than one? Or does it mean nothing at all?

Depending on the meaning of gfd (or lack thereof), the answer will be different in each case.

Gfd is only a word (or symbol). Words cannot be true or false. Once concepts can.

Michael

Michael (MSK),

You are asking questions I would ask to make a determination of the status of T2. What are your answers from the context given and why?

By the way, the scenario I am describing is not that uncommon, which is why I would like to understand how people deal with it.

[BaalChatzaf]

Thom T G, on May 9 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

This is a show of hands of sort, not a pragmatic test of truth, to discover a statistic, a quantity about a population of a class, namely, the class of Objectivists on OL who ever thought about the implications of logic for any learning through reading.

Suppose you are reading a serious scientific article in a research journal from a credible scientist in the field. You are reading along, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and then you chance upon this:

	T2: "Some gfds are gfds."

Knowing from the context that "gfds" is not a symbol standing for any other variable, and finding that it is not referenced thereafter in the refereed article, how are you to interpret T2, given your integrated knowledge of science, logic, and Objectivist epistemology?

Would you say that T2 is true? Why? False? Why? Or meaningless? Why?

In set algebra some A is B is translated as A ^ B != 0' where ^ denotes set intersection and 0' denotes the empty set. In case A = B, this becomes A^A != 0' But A ^ A = A so in case A = B we have A != 0.

Now to T2: if gfd is not empty (or: there is some x in gfd) then some gfd is gfd. If gfd is empty then it is not the case that some gfd is gfd.

In terms of your poll the statement some gfd are gfd is sometimes true (if there are any gfd) some times false (if there are no gfd) and not meaningless since it is either true or false.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 18 May 2009 - 07:07 AM

[Laure]

BaalChatzaf, on May 18 2009, 06:05 AM, said:

...In terms of your poll the statement some gfd are gfd is sometimes true (if there are any gfd) some times false (if there are no gfd) and not meaningless since it is either true or false.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I was going to say "true", but actually Baal has the correct answer here. There's no need for a poll; this is how it is!

:edit:

Thom T G, on May 9 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

...Knowing from the context that "gfds" is not a symbol standing for any other variable, and finding that it is not referenced thereafter in the refereed article, how are you to interpret T2, given your integrated knowledge of science, logic, and Objectivist epistemology?

Would you say that T2 is true? Why? False? Why? Or meaningless? Why?

So, "gfd" doesn't appear anywhere else in the article??? Why would the author use it, then? I'd still go with "it's either true or false", but you'd have to look to other sources to determine which it is, because we don't know if there are any gfd.

This post has been edited by Laure: 18 May 2009 - 08:17 AM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thom,

My answer was and will always be:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 9 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

Depending on the meaning of gfd (or lack thereof), the answer will be different in each case.

But...

Thom T G, on May 18 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

What are your answers from the context given and why?

I usually don't answer anything from such contexts.

Why? Lack of meaning.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Early morning and my brain cells are slow.

I put meaningless.

I'm going to use a simple approach...typing styles.

Let's say T2 is Typing of 2 styles - qwerty and dvorak.

qwerty - gfds is typed with the left hand, dvorak is typed with the right...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty - gfds is typed on the home row, dvorak is not...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty and dvorak share that gfds are from the same alphabet...meaning gfds is gfds.

since it is both true and false, then meaningless.

It's early.

~ Shane

[Dragonfly]

sbeaulieu, on May 18 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

Early morning and my brain cells are slow.

I put meaningless.

I'm going to use a simple approach...typing styles.

Let's say T2 is Typing of 2 styles - qwerty and dvorak.

qwerty - gfds is typed with the left hand, dvorak is typed with the right...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty - gfds is typed on the home row, dvorak is not...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty and dvorak share that gfds are from the same alphabet...meaning gfds is gfds.

since it is both true and false, then meaningless.

It's early.

~ Shane

Bravo! You have just proved that "A is A" is meaningless.

[sbeaulieu]

I sincerely doubt I proved anything. Without specifics or boundaries, the context is blurry. It's probably the point of the exercise. In reading MEM's statement, something either is or is not. MSK said something along the lines of what I pointed out...depending on the meaning, it will produce different answers (i.e. my analogy).

It's vague, either way. I'll have to see with Thom TG thinks.

I probably missed the mark...probably not.

Call it a learning curve.

~ Shane

[Thom T G]

sbeaulieu, on May 18 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

Early morning and my brain cells are slow.

I put meaningless.

I'm going to use a simple approach...typing styles.

Let's say T2 is Typing of 2 styles - qwerty and dvorak.

qwerty - gfds is typed with the left hand, dvorak is typed with the right...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty - gfds is typed on the home row, dvorak is not...meaning gfds is not gfds

qwerty and dvorak share that gfds are from the same alphabet...meaning gfds is gfds.

since it is both true and false, then meaningless.

It's early.

~ Shane

Shane,

You and MSK (in his Post #4) have found me out. In crafting my query for a show of hands about Objectivists' interpretations of truth and reading comprehension, I deliberately used a term not found in any dictionary but had to end with the letter 's' to simulate the plural form of a noun. And because I couldn't think of any quick or random way to generate the term, I honed in on the physical layout of the keyboard and typed a progression of keys with my right hand on the home row. Well done!

But the question remains. If this were in a real situation (and there's no answer you can peek from the back of the Textbook), what judgment are you to make on reading T2?

This is what I am interested in. I am interested in the introspective, psycho-epistemological evaluation of reading T2. As I mentioned before, the scenario I am describing is not that uncommon, which is why I would like to understand how people deal with it.

For example, take your case and MSK's. Now, MSK has already given his answer (even though he didn't vote). He evaluates T2 as meaningless because "gfd" is meaningless. Contrast this evaluation against another vote that the principle of bivalence holds: that a statement is either true or false. Which is the correct view? It doesn't matter to me in the present context. I am merely trying to document the various processes and reasons for evaluating T2.

What is your answer? Some people often say, if it is either true or false, then it is not meaningless; you say if it is both true and false, it is meaningless. What is the order of precedence for you? Meaning and then truth? Or Truth and then meaning?

So, disregard what others have voted or opined. I am requesting your independent evaluation of the status of T2. The more detailed your opinion, the better. Take a stand.

[Ian]

Thom T G, on May 22 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

So, disregard what others have voted or opined. I am requesting your independent evaluation of the status of T2. The more detailed your opinion, the better. Take a stand.

Oops. I didn't disregard Baal's reply before voting. I am not familiar with the notation used in set theory, but I understood, and agree, that if the set "gdfs" is empty, the statement is false. Since you stated:

Quote

"gfds" is not a symbol standing for any other variable

I concluded set "gdfs" is empty, i.e. has no referent in reality, therefore the statement is false. Besides, nobody else voted false. Somebody had to.

P.S. GS, I just found a syllogism useful. How about that?

Ian.