Do Brussels sprouts taste good? True or false? — SolarWind

That is not a true or false question. That is a question of subjective taste. However if you wrote: I like Brussel sprouts; true or false? - you might be onto something.

But everything depends on definitions. You wrote it yourself with Sorite's paradox. What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use. Is the pay of a particular worker fair? Yes or no? — SolarWind

Where is binary logic inapplicable?

Do not fault binary logic for the errors in our conceptual schema. You mentioned fairness as regards pay. Be precise as to what you mean by fairness and it's all good, bivalent logic is perfectly apt.

Do not fault binary logic for the errors in our conceptual schema. You mentioned fairness as regards pay. Be precise as to what you mean by fairness and it's all good, bivalent logic is perfectly apt. — TheMadFool

You need an additional assumption to decide the question. It is not immediately clear whether the answer is true or false.

Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here.

You need an additional assumption to decide the question. — SolarWind

So?

Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? — SolarWind

Define "tidal flat".

You need an additional assumption to decide the question. — SolarWind

So? — TheMadFool

OK, my example was bad.

Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? — SolarWind

Define "tidal flat".

The tidal flats have water at high tide and land at low tide.

The tidal flats have water at high tide and land at low tide. — SolarWind

If this definition generates fuziness then, the fuziness is in the definition. Amend the definition and the fuziness disappears.

Can you also give me a statement that brings out the fuzziness in the term "tidal flat"?

Can you also give me a statement that brings out the fuzziness in the term "tidal flat"? — TheMadFool

I do not understand the question. Obviously, there is sometimes water and sometimes land. So I can't say it's either sea or land.

Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here. — SolarWind

The definition of tidal flat is "essentially horizontal and commonly muddy or marshy land that is covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of tides"

There is no fuzziness here. Tidal flat is land.

I do not understand the question. Obviously, there is sometimes water and sometimes land. So I can't say it's either sea or land — SolarWind

Let's stick to classic examples then. I recall reading fuzzy logic back in my early 20's. I must confess it all went over my head but one thing I do remember is fuziness us about grey areas which in philosophy is vagueness.

One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.

Two things to consider:

1. Adapt logic to our conceptual schema: Vagueness is part of our language. Develop fuzzy logic.

2. Adapt our conceptual schema to binary logic: Use precising definitions. Keep binary logic.

Which option we go for would depend on...?

The definition of tidal flat is "essentially horizontal and commonly muddy or marshy land that is covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of tides"

There is no fuzziness here. Tidal flat is land. — Hermeticus

You can also call it "Wadden Sea".

You can also call it "Wadden Sea". — SolarWind

"Wadden Sea" describes a specific geographical location.
Wadden Sea is tidal flat. Tidal flat is not Wadden Sea.

One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears. — TheMadFool

How exactly are you going to determine the cut-off point? One thousandth of an inch?

Then true and false depends on the hairstyle.

One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.

Two things to consider:

1. Adapt logic to our conceptual schema: Vagueness is part of our language. Develop fuzzy logic.

2. Adapt our conceptual schema to binary logic: Use precising definitions. Keep binary logic. — TheMadFool

You seem to be saying that we can choose whether our concepts are fuzzy or not.

If we choose for them to be fuzzy, then, it seems to me, we face a further choice: we can reject LNC or we can reject bivalence (inclusive).

If so, then whether the fundamental principles of logic are true or not is a choice.

Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker

My tentative view is that it is indeed a kind of choice whether LNC is true or not. You cannot prove it.

If I chose to reject it, don't tell me that I am entangled in a performative contradiction! All I will have said is that it is not the case that ~(~P&P). That is, I have denied the LNC itself. So I admit that it could also be true. We don't know if it's true yet. You can argue for it being true. Fine. But that doesn't exclude it's being false, on my view if I reject it. Even if I did concede that it is true, I can also maintain that it is false.

There's a paper by Fogelin (Why Obey the Laws of Logic? (2002)) where he tries to argue that rejecting LNC deprives one of the ability to make assertions and denials. I don't think his argument works. Rejecting LNC is rejecting that it must be the case that (P&~P) is false. This is not to reject that for any proposition P, (P&~P).

Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here. — SolarWind

I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation, so apologies if I missed something, but isn't there a third option: "Tidal Flat is shared between land & sea". I.e., the question is wrong.

Do Brussels sprouts taste good? True or false? — SolarWind

Good point.
BTW, your question "Do Brussels sprouts taste good?" calls for a "Yes or no" answer. "True or false?" is asked on statements, not questions. So. you should say e.g. "Brussels sprouts taste good. True or false?" And, of course, there's no meaning in asking such a thing in this case, as you let it be understood.

Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker

First of all, I believe you should specify what "things" you are talking about. Because "apples" are "things" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them! Therefore, I have to assume that you mean "statements" (or something similar).

Then, I'm afraid you have not exhausted all the possible cases of "true" and/or "false"! :smile:
In order for any of these options to have any meaning, the "thing" that they apply to must be a fact or a hypothesis or something similar. That is, something that can be proved true or false. All other "things", which are not facts and which form the vast majority, cannot be answered as "true" or "false": preferences, opinions, beliefs, etc. "Apples are tasty", "This movie is good", "You should see his face!", etc. etc. There's no meaning in asking "True or false" to any of these statements, is there?

So, there's at least one more possibility: cases where "neither true nor false makes sense!" :grin:

If x is a cat, it can't be not a cat. — TheMadFool

Right. This statement applies to a fact as I myself indicated. But @TiredThinker has not cleeared this up. He referred to "things" in general. Which is a mistake.
Because, I could paraphrase slightly your statement and say "x looks like a cat". This is not a fact and we cannot ask if it is true or false, can we? No contradiction, no anything. We cannot even say that it can be either true or false: it would just have no meaning, since "looks like" is not something that can be proved, anyway.

If it's not paradoxical it's not true — Yohan

Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...)

An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination? — Yohan

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ...

My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false. — Michael

Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, @TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ...

Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ... — Alkis Piskas

What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence.

What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence — Michael

Well, a statement is a definite or clear expression of something. And this is too general. So a complete sentence that expresses something may qualify. Anyway, this is besides the point, since the topic means about "things", which is even more general!

Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...) — Alkis Piskas

I don't think so. I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge.

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ... — Alkis Piskas

My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE

Made me think of the latest vsauce video when you mentioned that paradox.

When I was asking about true or false, true and false, and neither true nor false I was referring to statements. Things that are objective and not opinions. I was watching a video in which the talker was saying sometimes things are neither or both true and false at the same time. Particularly in reference to more eastern philosophy. I assume in the west we prefer things to be more strictly true or false?

From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue?

From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? — TiredThinker

Exactly.

What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue? — TiredThinker

How is that?

So we don't have the facts to make a final judgment!

I don't think that making progress is the point. — T Clark

Perhaps not. That depends on who's pointing. And some modern philosophers have developed a case of Physics Envy, on the assumption that Philosophy is supposed to make some kind of progress. But then, Postmodern philosophers have gone to the opposite extreme, and denied that there is any objective True/False --- it's all political. But traditionally, philosophers have at least hoped to get "closer to truth". In which case, 80% truth value may be close enough for practical purposes. :cool:

Free will vs. determinism was never difficult and mysterious. Philosophers made it so. — T Clark

I wouldn't blame the mystery on philosophers. They merely accepted the challenge of explaining why some of us feel free to choose, even in the face of scientific evidence that the world is strictly determined by initial conditions and natural laws. In fact, Freewill is not a physical problem, it's a moral quandary, And flakey philosophers fee free to foray where angels fear to tread. :gasp:

:up:

I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge. — Yohan

Ha, ha! Nice! :grin:

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question?
— Alkis Piskas
My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question. — Yohan

:grin: ... This place desperately needs this kind of stuff!!

Or the final judgment is not a binary yes, no, true false. IOW we could decide that viruses are something in between a lifeform and not a lifeform. That it would be wrong to categorize it as one and not the other.

yes it is possible for something to be true and false at the same time. Because of relativity of a state or condition to an observer.

Consider a 6 painted on the ground and two observers standing on the opposite side of the symbol. It is true that observer A sees a 6 and it is true that observer B sees a 9. From their perspective the opposite observers claim is false. From their personally logic/ observation this is true.

The reality of course is that it depends on the perspective. It is “spatially relativistic”.

Similarly we can think in terms of temporality. A civilisation observing earth from 20,000 light years away sees a planet populated by a few, unsophisticated humans with little technology and no civilisation. The claim that “planet earth is populated by 8 billion humans with sophisticated technology and integrated globalised societies” would to them be false in this moment based off observations but we know from living here that it is true.