When pertaining to whether or not someone is lying, all that matters, if we hold that lying boils down to misrepresenting one's own belief to another, is the speaker's belief - not whether or not that is true. That does not discount knowledge however, assuming the speaker has such. We need not assume that though, because it was given that s/he did. So, all I'm saying is that it does no good to say that the switch doesn't need to exist. That move leads to incoherence, because if we take what is given to be true(and we should in order to examine the consequences) - then, based upon what was given, the speaker must possess applicable knowledge regarding the safety of the switch. It then becomes a matter of whether or not they're saying something than conflicts with that JTB.



I would agree based upon how this has been set out above. I wuld only note that the red portion was not included earlier. I assumed that that was the case, and as a result of following from the law of non-contradiction subsequently concluded that the speaker must be lying to one or the other - which would be true if the assumption were also. However, and this is pivotal, because that was not given, it could have been the case that the speaker did not believe that it could only be D1(safe) or D2(not safe) because of the content of his/her knowledge.

Don't play along.

I didn't misunderstand what you were trying to do, It was painfully obvious what you were attempting. I pointed out the fact that your experiment was lacking in the requirements to be certain.

How did I reach my conclusion?
Simple, your original claim specified no change in context or situation.

You cried like a baby when you thought I changed the context.

You ignored the fact that I only offered an example that would not violate your setup. (all because you forgot to specify the informer's beliefs about the safety of the switch)

You then insert data that was "supposed" to be assumed. CHANGING THE CONTEXT! (lol, when in doubt, blame others for not reading your mind)

You came back here crying troll when your error was pointed out.

Then you re-word the experiment to correctly reflect the needed data to render your original conclusion of certainty of lying.

You haven't admitted any mistake, in fact, you keep arguing as if your experiment was clear at first.

So with all your rethoric and goal-post moving, I have 2 conclusions that are prominent.


Soooo, either you're stupid or lying, I went with the latter...

I don't think you believe that he's lying.

One who claims the obviousness of another's intent voluntarily takes on the burden of showing/proving it. One who knows that such a thing is nearly impossible to accomplish knows better than to call another a liar.



Pointing out that the speaker's belief was left open to assumption suffices as a good argument. The conclusion is not genuine. I mean, surely everyone who overlooks something significant in the midst of a philosophical discussion is not necessarily stupid or lying. I mean if that is always the case, then which one of those two options are you when you're mistaken?



You too, are sometimes mistaken... right?

I unpacked what I meant by the knowledge of the informer not changing. Which is the key factor anyways, and would not make sense if it did.

Assuming something, is perfectly honest, when that assumption is the key to making the explanation logically consistent.

Its not like my purpose was to be inconsistent. That is why you are a troll peter, you dont care. Your just interested in the flagellation.

Agreed. The only point I'm making is that one could assume several different things about the knowledge of the switch, all of which would render logical consistency while arriving at valid but very different conclusions.

I claimed to know his intent here, lying comes later...
He stated his intent in the original experiment by virtue of his implied "certainty" conclusion as well as stating later what his intent was.





Oh I've been mistaken no doubt. However, I'm quick with an appology or correction as soon as I'm aware of it.
I don't argue that I was right if I know I was wrong. I may reword my words, but I will never argue in the past something that I was wrong about as if what I "intended" was what I stated.


So bushido specified no change in context or situation, right?
Then why would he instruct us later to add the needed info?

"If the only element missing is the informer actually believing a safety element was involved then you should just add that.

It is the most dishonest thing in a discussion to carry on like this. (Peter I am talking to you, your inability to play along makes you a troll)

I have no problem with my initial quick 5 minute setup being amended. Just do it, dont make up all this crap. "


So, based upon bushido's thought experiment, I can rightly come to the conclusion that he is certainly nothing but a liar..

In order for us to conclude with certainty that the speaker must be lying to one or the other, we must not assume that the speaker believes that activating the switch is dangerous regardless of who activates it, rather we must know that.

LOL!

So I assumed that the safety of the switch was safe for one and not safe for the other...

Case closed, my conclusion of uncertainty was correct.

Thank you for playing...

Well, I'm not sure about all that - nor does it matter because bushido is not the focus. What is the focus is whether or not we could conclude that the speaker in his example must be lying based upon what was given. We could arrive at that conclusion by assuming that the speaker's knowledge base included that the switch was equally dangerous for all who activated it. We could arrive at other conclusions by assuming otherwise. None of the assumptions are any less valid than the others. The problem being that, as you stated earlier, assumptions must be made.



Well, I'll not focus upon this for lots of reasons. Suffice it to say that it doesn't necessarily look that way to me, and that such a conclusion cannot be anymore confidently drawn than the one in the example being discussed.

YUP, thread done, I am a liar. My intention was to cause a multi page **** storm of idiocy! YUP that makes perfect sense!

Peter your are a ****ing genius!




So based on what we have learned what does that make Peter? Creatives believes that peter is a _____

Lets fill in the blank.

And you are a liar...


bushido said


the contradicted himself with this:


First you tell me not to add info, then you tell me to add info.
You've presented one belief and then told me to contradict it.
So by your definition, one of those statements must be a lie.


You'll do anything to save face including lie, huh?

Child's play...

Oh bushido, I could be wrong. Pan very well may believe that you are lying. I just do not see how that that conclusion has any basis in what has occurred here.

There is simply not information known in order to draw such a conclusion.

It could be, and I would argue for the possibility that bushido recognized(afterwards) that something must be assumed in order to conclude anything at all, and that that is what prompted his later instruction.

No assumptions need be made. The fact alone that one could be made or one needs to be made should result in the uncertain conclusion.

Now you're contradicting yourself. It cannot be the case that no assumptions need be made and simultaneously be a fact that one needs to be made.

We agree on that the best conclusion is one of uncertainty.

Just as I would not conclude that bushido's contradiction constitute grounds for calling him a liar, I would not say that yours constitute such ground either.

However, you would skewer yourself at your own insistence if you held that contradiction alone is adequate evidence of such a thing.

Know whatta mean?

You misunderstand what I meant, my bad I guess?

If bushido's experiment requires an assumption or allows for an assumption, then I do not need to make an assumption at all to know that I could not be certain. Make sense now?

bushido's own words...
"For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must believe something other than what he presents as truth. Or said a different way, presents information he/she believes is incorrect."


He has presented two separate "truths" that contradict each other.
If it's not a mistake, then it MUST be a lie... He hasn't admitted any mistakes yet...