A modal falacy
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Geometrical Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof #22; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof corrected
Next: solutions manual to Accounting Information Systems 11E Romney SM
From: Frederick Williams on 3 Sep 2009 03:38 William Elliot wrote: > What's Gordon Brown doing meddling in Scottish affairs? He isn't, hence 'does not want...' is correct. One might also ask: what was the CIA doing coaching and bribing witnesses and thereby meddling in the court's affairs? -- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
From: William Elliot on 3 Sep 2009 05:58 On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Frederick Williams wrote: > William Elliot wrote: > >> What's Gordon Brown doing meddling in Scottish affairs? > > He isn't, hence 'does not want...' is correct. > > One might also ask: what was the CIA doing coaching and bribing > witnesses and thereby meddling in the court's affairs? > Reply over clipped, problem content removed, intelligent reply impossible, your post conveys infinitesimal sense.
From: David C. Ullrich on 3 Sep 2009 09:21 On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:27:58 +0100, Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: >BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > >and > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. What difference? Of course the two are different a priori. But in fact everyone dies, and if we take the fact that everyone dies as an axiom then the two statements are equivalent. David C. Ullrich "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." in sci.logic.)
From: Frederick Williams on 3 Sep 2009 10:08 "David C. Ullrich" wrote: > > On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:27:58 +0100, Frederick Williams > <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: > > >BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > > > >and > > > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. > > What difference? > > Of course the two are different a priori. But in fact > everyone dies, and if we take the fact that everyone > dies as an axiom then the two statements are equivalent. If G.B. has no opinion on the matter then the first will be true and the second false. I don't see what the inevitability of death has to do with it. The truth values of X did not want Y. and X wanted Y. are determined by X's psyche not by the the inevitability or otherwise of Y. I have almost certainly missed your point. Sorry. -- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
From: LudovicoVan on 3 Sep 2009 10:16
On 3 Sep, 08:32, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> wrote: > LudovicoVan wrote: > > > On 2 Sep, 12:27, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> > > wrote: > > > > BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > > > > and > > > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. > > > There might be a third, I think: > > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi not to die in prison. > > > As a foreign English speaker, I'd greatly appreciate if you or anyone > > else could explain the differences in meaning among them: to me the > > second doesn't sound proper English at all, > > You're right, it isn't! > > > while I can't get the > > difference between the other two... > > Well look: a new-born baby did not want Magrahi to die in prison because > new-born babies don't want anything except to be fed and to sleep. But > it is false that said baby wanted Magrahi not to die in prison. Thanks, makes sense: in fact taken to the letter it's not so different than -say- Italian. Anyway, I think your case shows once more how every communication is intrinsecally ambiguous and meaning depends on context and conventions. Namely, it's not hard to concoct counter-examples where the two statements mean the same, or where the first can be used to explain the second. I.e. -and just for the sake of discussion- I would think you cannot make any strong point about those journalists by just comparing the two statements in isolation: one must have read the articles and be already, even if implicitly, in agreement with your interpretation. (I mean, even if you are apparently right, it's quite hard to defend such cases.) -LV |