You figure that that is logically implied by what has been given?

I find no reason for Jill to be concerned about Joe's newborn baby compromising an otherwise private conversation. It's not like they understand what is being spoken. Mary still is in the other room, isn't she?

That is correct.

I am conceding to the idea that "Are you the only one here?" could indicate that Jill wants to speak to Joe in private. I am further saying that in order to know if that is what she meant it would require being there in person because those words do not mean that as spoken, therefore Jill's body language and intonation would offer the additional contextual information necessary to infer such a thing. It is possible that that could be what is meant by that expression.

Furthermore, I am saying that if Jill meant "can we speak privately" she wouldn't ask "Are you the only one here?" while meaning the room that they were both occupying, because she would be in that room and could see that much for herself so there would be no need to ask for information regarding that. Rather, she would be asking if it were possible to speak in private, which implies being uninterrupted by others. So, if that is the meaning intended, then she would be asking if anyone else were in the house.

I supposed that you'd taken the entire context into consideration. Evidently that was a wrongful presuppositon. If we are Joe when the question is first posed, we could - depending upon connotation, facial expressions and the like - know that that is what Jill was asking for. However, if Jill then looked around, found Mary, and asked why we lied we would have to explain that we misunderstood the question. The problem is that when asking to speak in private, the speaker usually has readily identifiable cues that are not present when asking if anyone else is home.

It is plausible though, no question there.

Well, that meaning is certainly a possibility, and I suspect that we've all used it at one time or another.

No argument here.

That doesn't follow from the provided context, specifically, the portion which stated that Jill looked around after Joe answered "yes", found Mary, and then asked Joe why he lied.

Nor does it answer the question being asked.

What information do you think/believe that Jill would be asking you to provide for her?

Well, unfortunately - it certainly seems to have brought some. However, I do not find that strife had to come from the story as given - do you? I mean, any and all stories can be turned into a situation of strife, depending upon how the story is engaged. Thus, just because strife results, it does not mean that the story wasn't useful. Nor does it follow that the same story being employed in another situation would have the same result. It is how we use the story that matters the most, wouldn't you agree?




I'm not sure what you mean here by "perceived truth" or "truth-as-each-spoke it." I mean, those uses of the term "truth" are quite different than I'm used to. Is "perceived truth" the same thing as that which one believes to be true? Is "truth-as-each-spoke it" the same thing as the parts of testimony that were true?




I must agree that not all folk interpret everything in the same way, and that whether or not one is being honest and forthright when answering a question entirely depends upon how the question is intepreted. So, just out of curiosity... put yourself in Joe's shoes.

If you were in a house knowing that Mary was in another room and Jill walked in and asked you if you were alone, what information do you think/believe that Jill would be asking you to provide for her?

Thank you for your continued engagement AB, it is a nice addition.

I agree that these are good things. However, I cannot find reason to call a made up story "a lie" based solely upon it's being made up. I mean, we make stories up all the time to do good things as well as bad. We can tell a true story for bad purposes, as well as telling a made up one for good purposes. So, the label "lie" seems misplaced to me. If everyone knows that a story is made up, then I find no reason to label such a thing "a lie" unless the storyteller is misleading the listeners in such a way that s/he is implying or outright falsely claiming that the story is real.



I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here. The initial purpose of the thread was to answer a question. The focus has sinced evolved into whether or not we, as humans, are able to establish a criterion by which we can be sure if another's testimony is honest and forthright. It seems to me that we can do such a thing. Do you find that we cannot?

There is no such logical implication regarding what was written. There is a crucial distinction between logical implications and unfounded assumptions that need be tended to here, because it is now apparent that you do not know the difference between them. The following...


Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course."


...does not imply what you think/believe that it does. Just because it is stated that Jill walks into the room with Joe and asks him if he is the only one there, that does not imply that Jill means, nor that I mean - the particular room that they both occupy. That is to insist upon imposing an unusual meaning where none is warranted and mistaking that imposition for logical implication.

Whether we're talking about a hypothetical scenario, such as that between Joe and Jill, or any other conversation between folk who speak the same language, the default position of the listener is to attribute the most common meaning to the speakers words, unless the speaker further clarifies. That's how language works. We know that that is the case, because when, and if, a speaker's intended meaning is not the most common one, then they will make a point to clarify so as to get their unusual meaning across. Speakers do that because we all know that the most common meaning is always assumed by the listener. Jill has offered no such further clarification. Thus, we - meaning you, I, and any other person reading this thread - can only assume that Jill's meaning follows the most common usage, because - quite frankly - there is no reason to think/believe otherwise. We must further assume that Joe uses language just like the rest of us, because that much is clear based upon what was given.

--

The problem here is that your argument relies upon your attributing an unusual meaning where none is implied, nor warranted. Put yourself in Joe's shoes, Pan. You are in one room of a house, Mary is in another and you know that. Jill walks into the room with you and asks "Are you the only one here?" - because afterall, she wouldn't use the term "there" in such a situation - how would you interpret the question?

Perhaps it be better put... what sort of information would you think/believe that Jill was asking you to provide?

Would you sit and argue with Jill about the meaning of her question as you have argued with me, or would you - like every other honest English speaker - assume the most common usage and give an answer which reflected that you knew that she was asking if you were the only one home?

--

As I've already said...

It is a trite and philosophically uninteresting game that you're playing Pan.

That's what it usually means Pan. Honest folk do not question such a thing, nor insist upon an unusual meaning when a speaker does not specify one.

The stance being taken here undermines the ability of language to effectively communicate thought/belief from one person to another. It is absurd, because if everyone took that stance, none of us would have a clue what anyone else meant by anything spoken or written. That was the point of my earlier response which intentionally took the stance to the extreme in order to drive that point home. People just don't do that, because doing that destroys the value and purpose of language. The imprtant thing to remeber is that by, and in large, we do understand one another much more than we don't, because meaning is shared. It is only when we're unsure of what another means that we ask for further clarification. That being said, there are a couple of important things that need be brought to light.

1. Arguing philosophy from a dictionary is intellectually poor practice. Words almost inevitably have more than one definition. Words are defined by other words, which are further defined by other words, which are further defined by other words, which are further defined by other words, etc. Definitions cross-reference other words and will eventually end up cross-referencing the original word. Thus, it ends in circularity, and it serves as a clear sign of an argument which lacks the philosophical integrity and/or meaningful substance that is required in order to develop the concepts in question.

2. There is no exactitude of meaning possible with common language. Thus, it makes no sense to expect/demand such a thing. One could continue to further clarify, and another whose hell-bent upon creating controversy could continue to further embark upon the pointless imagining of all of the possible ways to obfuscate the meaning of words by putting forth all of the different definitions of all of the different words. Such objections render themselves groundless. Such a pursuit shows a lack of honest communication, and an insistence upon creating controversy where none need be, where none normally is. It is often as a ploy by dishonest folk that is used to feign ignorance regarding what other folks mean, and as such it is a very odd method for arguing honesty.

Now speaking of necessary assumptions...

3. When we look at meaning, we look at the way words are being used. There are implicit rule of language, that when broken, offends the sensibility of English speakers(myself included). One such rule is the assumption of the most common meaning. For a listener to assume anything other than the most common meaning of any expression at any given time during discourse is for a listener to not listen. To impose an unusual interpretation where the most common one suffices stifles the purpose of language, especially when there is no logical reason to do so. Nothing given suggests that Joe or Jill have an ill-formed understanding of how to use the English language, nor that Jill is employing an unusual meaning. The default position when attributing meaning to the words of another, is always to attribute the most common use of the terms, because no further clarification has been given to warrant the attribution of an unusual meaning. Keeping that in mind...

If it is given that Joe understands that Jill is not asking him to count her(and it is), and it is given that Joe knows about Mary's presence in another room(and it is), and it is given that Jill is in the room with Joe(and it is), then the only sensible conclusion is that Jill and Joe are using language just like normal folk do - which entails that unless Jill explicitly states otherwise, she is using the most common meaning. So, under normal circumstances with normal English speaking folk(and that is the only reasonable conclusion based upon what has been given), there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that Jill meant any of the following things...


that specific spot in the room Joe was in.
in a corner of the room or group of furniture.
that particular room.
the first floor of the house.


...because those are unusual meanings(not the most common one). Unusual meanings are the ones that folk tend to make more explicit in order to get their meaning across. Such clarification was not offered by Jill, so there is ground whatsoever for attributing an unusual meaning to what was given. Just as in normal conversation, the default position is that she's using the most common meaning. In the same situation, we are usually asking another if they are the only one home. Thus, when we are asked such a thing, we assume that we're being asked the same. We do that because if something more explicit is not said, then we - as normal English speaking folk - assume the most common meaning. That's how natural language works. We do not sit and banter back and forth about all of the different possible interpretations, unless we're being intentionally difficult to get along with, intentionally sarcastic, intentionally facetious, or dishonest regarding what we think is being asked.

Thus, in the same situation as Joe, honest folk who know that others are present would answer "No, Mary is in the other room", because that is how normal folk communicate. The interpretations listed above are not the most common, and as such, those are the ones which folk will further qualify and/or explain if that is what is meant. We - as listeners - have been offered no such clarification, thus we - as listeners - assume the most common meaning. That's how language works.

The important thing to remember here is that it is the speaker who clarifies if they are employing some unusual meaning of an otherwise uncontentious and common saying, and that has not been done. It is for that reason, and that reason alone that we have no reason to suggest otherwise.

Do YOU acknowledge that ALL scenarios presented in common language require assumptions?

Turtles are cool.

It is a trite and philosophically uninteresting game that you're playing Pan.

Period.

Do you acknowledge that the statement as presented was not clear and required assumptions?

What do you mean by "creative"?
What do you mean by "I"?
What do you mean by "want"?
What do you mean by "your"?
What do you mean by "honest"?
What do you mean by "opinion"?
What do you mean by "of"?
What do you mean by "what"?
What do you mean by "I'm"?
What do you mean by "about"?
What do you mean by "to"?
What do you mean by "explain"?
What do you mean by "here"?

You figure that by your offering your version of a literal interpretation of the term "there" that that constitutes warrant to conclude that Joe was 'telling the truth'?



How's that work?

Well, then there's really no point in my continuing this with you. You are mistakenly calling a claim an argument. You apparently don't know the rules. I'm not patient enough to teach you. So, if wish for me to continue, google "logical argument" "philosophical argument" or something like that, get up to speed regarding what an argument looks like; what they consist in/of, and then come back and give one.

Is that supposed to be an argument Pan?

That's not an argument.

You need to show what it would take for your claim to be true, while not contradicting the scenario provided.