Well, in general, no. I mean, it depends upon the assumption in question. Regarding what must be assumed in the example... yes.

Nor need he in order for him to be mistaken.

Yes, he does. As long as he holds true both and argues using both, he is lying about one or the other.

I'm a troll for what exactly? Inserting data(recognising the posibility) or for not inserting data? I think I've been called a troll for both "offenses" LOL!

Just curious as to what you think of my reply here.

And does this scenario change the definition of what an "honest" person would be?

Do we allow for assumptions as a basis for honesty or do we take things at literal face value?

No, he doesn't. He may believe that there is no contradiction.

You're attempting to argue that not admitting to mistake equate to lying. One can be mistaken and not grasp that that is the case. If one does not grasp that that is the case, then there is no reason to admit a mistake. A refusal to admit mistake does not equate to being a liar.

Looks rather pointless to me.

We do not walk into a house and ask another if they're alone while thinking of ourselves and expecting the listener's response to take that into consideration. I mean, if our listener is supposed to take our presence into consideration, then the question would not be asked. It would be a utterly pointless question. The question is not pointless though because we know what it means. When asked or asking such a question in common parlance, we all understand that it is about people other than the questioner.



I don't see how.



We do both. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Pointless why? Because it contradicts your conclusion?

Don't you remember? I got chastised for what was perceived as adding data to bushido's experiment. Now, like before, even though unstated (like before), I'm expected to assume things?





Because Joe directly violates bushido's definition of what a liar is and yet you think he was being honest...
"If you can gather information that shows the person has the applicable knowledge in question, and yet presents something other than that without mistake, than you can know they are lying."

I showed that Joe had the applicable knowledge yet presented something else.





So both of these answers from Joe can be true simultaneously without violating the law of contradiction?

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


"Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe answers "no, of course not". Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room."

Because everyone knows what the question aims at. It is so simply straightforward that very small children understand exactly what they're being asked. We do not ask another if they're alone while counting ourselves and/or expecting the listener to count us as well. If that was what the question meant, then it would not even be asked.

What would the point of asking be?






What you've called "bushido's definition of what a liar is" was nothing of the sort. You're mistaken. It was a proposed criterion for knowing that another is lying. I'm not arguing with you about that or his definition of liar.






This doesn't help your case, nor does it place my conclusion in doubt. Joe answers "no" because that is what he believes. Joe cannot believe both, that he is alone and that he is not alone, the presence of the Jill notwithstanding for reasons already given. Your counterargument renders the question(and therefore itself) utterly meaningless to the point of absurdity. A reductio ad absurdum.

If, upon arriving at a place, we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking the person to count us. We're asking if there are others, besides us and them, that are present but not seen.

Are you objecting to what the question means, what it is asking for?

No, they cannot both be true simultaneuosly. Either Joe is alone, Jill notwithstanding, or Joe is not alone, Jill notwithstanding. Whether Joe's answer is true or not is irrelevant regarding whether or not Joe is lying, and that is what's at stake.

What's at stake is how you identify what constitutes a lie and how to identify if a person is lying or not.

"Jill notwithstanding" was NOT part of the original question as stated.

You say that both cannot be true.

You claimed Joe's answer of "yes, of course" was Joe being honest.

I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.


So, why would you think that Joe was lying if he answered "no"?

That's implied by what I said. Whether or not we can assess if Joe is lying depends upon knowing what a lie is in addition to knowing how to tell when another is lying. Are you objecting to that?



So what?

It need not be stated for reasons already clearly explained without subsequent objection/refutation by your good self.



When we ask another if they are alone we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, that is what is being asked about. Based upon a basic understanding such as that, we can know that Joe cannot believe that he is both alone and not alone simultaneuosly. It also cannot be the case that Joe is alone and not alone simultaneuosly. Joe does not know that Mary is there, thus he answered honestly because he believes his own answer.

So basically, you expect a whole sheetload of assumptions for you to communicate honestly...


First you assume that Joe knows what to assume from your question.
Then you assume that Joe made that assumption and then you assume that you can judge whether or not he answered honestly. Basing everything on assumptions you only accept his answer when it agrees with what you assumed...

Do I got that right?

Everyone knows what the question "Are you alone?" aims at. It is so simply straightforward that very small children understand exactly what they're being asked. Thus, when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about.

Do you object?

We do not ask another if they're alone while expecting the listener to count us as well. If that were what was aimed at then why not just ask... "Are you alone or am I here too?" I'll tell you why we don't. That's a ridiculous question to ask another person. Don't you find it odd that your arguing that we should think in such terms?

What would the point of asking such a question be?

Pointless.

LOL!

All you have to do is allow them both to be true.

But in your stubborness, I'm sure you'll make some other reference to very small children understanding this stuff and stand by your claim.

If you want to break this down, you'll find that I'm right regarding this the same way I was right regarding bushido's example. The difference being I don't have to assume anything.

To require someone to make an assumption as to what you mean is a form of deception. Express your thoughts more clearly and there won't need to be any assumptions made.

Your words are hollow.

And you CAN'T identify a lie because your primary mode of communication is deception.

You expect it, imply it, assume it, and when you see an honest answer, you argue against it.

No, you don't. First of all it's not about me and whether or not I'm communicating honestly. It's about a simple and rather uncontentious question and whether or not that question was answered honestly. It is the meaning of that question that you're attempting to make a contentious matter.



I say that that answer, in order to be honest depends upon thinking that "Are you alone" means "Are you alone or am I here too?"

What would be the point of such nonsense?

Do you believe that that is what the question means?