Or better yet, salvage your own argument that has just been proven to be based upon very dubious presuppositions.

I mean, really. What are you trying to say?

Make an argument.

You need to leave. Seriously. Go somewhere else, I'm not interested.

Here's the scenario...

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?

--

I say that it depends upon what Joe believes that Jill is asking for and whether or not his answer captures that.

Here's the scenario...

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?




1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.

I suggest you look up the difference between denotative and connotative meaning and start another thread.

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.


--

How do you respond to what has been set out here? Do you agree with 1 and 2? If not, then what exactly is it about either that you object to? As far as I can tell, they both capture exactly what it would take for you claims to be true.

You ought read more that just the first statement...



I said...



Interpretation doesn't matter Pan. The criterion being used need only that an interpretation be given. Which one given makes no difference.

Not even close. If it were the basis of all types of judgment, then no one would have been able to judge until a dictionary was written. Doing philosophy from a dictionary is really poor practice. In order for that particular definition to capture the meaning of all kinds of judgment, it would have to be applicable to every situation in which the term is used in a meaningful manner.

Kant calls judgment a talent that cannot be learned.

Judgment, if it is to mean "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions" then we are talking about an ability which has yet to have been set out. In other words, what does it take to acquire such an ability?




No. You're not. The post that I think that you're referring to was simply a response to another concerning such a thing. Basing such a conclusion upon such flimsy ground doesn't make for sound judgment.

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.


--

How do you respond to what has been set out here? Do you agree with 1 and 2? If not, then what exactly is it about either that you object to? As far as I can tell, they both capture exactly what it would take for you claims to be true.

Interpretation doesn't matter Pan. The criterion being used need only that an interpretation be given. Which one given makes no difference. I'm not interested in arguing with you about things that do not matter to the focus of the thread. The focus is establishing and testing a criterion, which when satified, allows us the highest degree of confidence in judging whether someone is being honest.

Seeing how it is obvious that you're obsessed with attempting to belittle me whil insisting upon a petty argument regarding who's intepretation is 'correct'...

I suggest you look up the difference between denotative and connotative meaning and start another thread. I'd be glad to join in...

Just so you know, I'm not saying this to be boastful in any way shape or form, but I'm trying to do you a favor by revealing a fact to you that you're obviously unaware of.

When it comes to basic language skills, reading comprehension, and the like, I've always scored in the 99.99% on standardized testing. That is the highest mark possible. You do not know what you're talking about. Let it go.

What topic isn't?

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.




And yet you STILL do not realize that your claims depend upon it.

Sigh.

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.

If you only knew...

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying?






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.

I think that it is safe to say that all judgment presupposes truth.