(November 25, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Hammy Wrote: There are no true paradoxes, IMO . . .

---

(November 25, 2017 at 9:03 am)Dave B Wrote: I always tell lies.

Do you really believe that, or do you in fact believe that you sometimes tell lies?

That was not a personal statement! My lie : truth ratio is probably about average. 70 odd years of practice has informed me that lying about anythjng that has a potential for adverse consequences - for oneself or others - at least nips ones arse 99% of the time. Especially if one possesses anything resembling a conscience!

Actually, after posting that, I began to wonder if it were not closer to being an  oxymoron. One definition of paradox is

Quote:a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

(Straight off Google.)
My offering seems to qualify for the first part but definitely not the second.

Yes I know.

(November 25, 2017 at 1:18 pm)Dave B Wrote:

(November 25, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Hammy Wrote: There are no true paradoxes, IMO . . .

---

Do you really believe that, or do you in fact believe that you sometimes tell lies?

That was not a personal statement! My lie : truth ratio is probably about average.

That wasn't the point of my question. The point is that "I always tell lies" is not a paradox, because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement", for starters.

(November 25, 2017 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 25, 2017 at 1:18 pm)Dave B Wrote: That was not a personal statement! My lie : truth ratio is probably about average.

That wasn't the point of my question. The point is that "I always tell lies" is not a paradox, because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement", for starters.

Hmm, the Oxford dictionary offers:

Quote:lie2



NOUN

• 1An intentionally false statement.
  ‘they hint rather than tell outright lies’
  
  ‘the whole thing is a pack of lies’
  

Unless "intentional" is the only thing that is different, missing, then your statement seems to vie with the above.

(November 26, 2017 at 3:37 am)Dave B Wrote:

(November 25, 2017 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: That wasn't the point of my question. The point is that "I always tell lies" is not a paradox, because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement", for starters.

Hmm, the Oxford dictionary offers:

Quote:lie2



NOUN

• 1An intentionally false statement.
  ‘they hint rather than tell outright lies’
  
  ‘the whole thing is a pack of lies’
  

Unless "intentional" is the only thing that is different, missing, then your statement seems to vie with the above.

Well, 'intentional' is the operative word.  An unintentionally false statement is normally called 'a mistake'.  For example, if I say, 'The population of Auckland is two million' when it is actually one and a half million, I haven't told a lie as long as I believe the population to be two million.

All lies are false statements, not all false statements are lies.

Boru

(November 26, 2017 at 6:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 26, 2017 at 3:37 am)Dave B Wrote: Hmm, the Oxford dictionary offers:

Unless "intentional" is the only thing that is different, missing, then your statement seems to vie with the above.

Well, 'intentional' is the operative word.  An unintentionally false statement is normally called 'a mistake'.  For example, if I say, 'The population of Auckland is two million' when it is actually one and a half million, I haven't told a lie as long as I believe the population to be two million.

All lies are false statements, not all false statements are lies.

Boru

Very true, Boru, I deliberately did not expand it.

In 'normal' bebate one makes a statement and then at least supports, qualifies or proves it. Not to do so invites challenge if the statement is incorrect or incomplete. Had Hammy said something like, "... because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement" unless the qualification 'intentional' is included ..." (my bold addition) I would have happily agreed. In omitting that  he left a bald statement that is only correct as stated, not in all cases. One which should be challenged.

It's actually a good ploy if you know, for sure, that your opponent's ripost will contain material that digs him or her deeper into their own hole - something that you can definitely prove to be false or contradictable in a concrete manner. You appologise for your omission or error then turn the opponent's ripost against them.Often used against dogmatic reliogionistas and in courts of law.

But, needs careful use, it can backfire!

(November 26, 2017 at 6:59 am)Dave B Wrote:

(November 26, 2017 at 6:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, 'intentional' is the operative word.  An unintentionally false statement is normally called 'a mistake'.  For example, if I say, 'The population of Auckland is two million' when it is actually one and a half million, I haven't told a lie as long as I believe the population to be two million.

All lies are false statements, not all false statements are lies.

Boru

Very true, Boru, I deliberately did not expand it.

In 'normal' bebate one makes a statement and then at least supports, qualifies or proves it. Not to do so invites challenge if the statement is incorrect or incomplete. Had Hammy said something like, "... because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement" unless the qualification 'intentional' is included ..." (my bold addition) I would have happily agreed. In omitting that  he left a bald statement that is only correct as stated, not in all cases. One which should be challenged.

It's actually a good ploy if you know, for sure, that your opponent's response will contain material that digs him or her deeper into their own hole - something that you can definitely prove to be false or contradictable in a concrete manner. You appologise for your omission or error then turn the opponent's reply against them.Often used against dogmatic reliogionistas and in courts of law.

But, needs careful use, it can backfire!

(November 26, 2017 at 3:37 am)Dave B Wrote:

(November 25, 2017 at 7:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: That wasn't the point of my question. The point is that "I always tell lies" is not a paradox, because the definition of a lie is not "a false statement", for starters.

Hmm, the Oxford dictionary offers:

Quote:lie2



NOUN

• 1An intentionally false statement.
  ‘they hint rather than tell outright lies’
  
  ‘the whole thing is a pack of lies’
  

Unless "intentional" is the only thing that is different, missing, then your statement seems to vie with the above.

Um.... so you recognize my point and then you ignore it? Intention is extremely relevant.

In fact it's all that's relevant because, more accurately, it's not "an intentionally false statement", it's a statement with false intentions . . . the statement itself doesn't have to be false. That particular dictionary definition is very much not a very good one. A lie is actually a statement that one makes that one believes to be false, regardless of how true or false that statement actually is. A lie is something someone says that they don't actually believe. Whether something is objectively true or false or not is irrelevant. If someone says "2+2=4" but they actually believe that 2+2=5, then they are lying. If someone says "2+2=5", but they genuinely are deluded and believe that 2+2 really is 5, then they are telling the truth. The fact that the first belief is objectively true and the latter belief is objectively false is irrelevant.

Of course, this particular solution to the so-called Liar's Paradox would only work on versions like "I always lie", but it wouldn't work on versions of the Liar's Paradox such as "Everything I say is false" or "This sentence is false."

IMO, Arthur Prior, the creator of temporal logic, offered the correct solution to all versions of the so-called Liar's Paradox.

Will have to read your post later, Hammy - on short leash.

No, I did not respond because I did not know whether your statement stood on its own or required tge wualifucation. This is a problem of forum debates, you can't read the body language or voice tone. It also takes a long time to "read" another person's style nuances. Thus I tend to either react to the statement as-is, un-nuanced, or ask for a qualification.

I am not a mind reader and tend to be a bit of a literalist, iI will mostly take domething written in places like this at face value (unless there is a modifying emoji!) One if tge reasons I usually avoid forum debates unkess I can make a concrete conttibution.

(November 26, 2017 at 6:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: All lies are false statements, not all false statements are lies.

IMO, it's not even true that all lies are false statements. There's merely usually strong correlation (people who tell lies are usually making false statements), and that's all.

Take the following example that I have just thought up that I call Gary and the Nonexistent Unusual Rabbit:

Imagine a man, Gary, who has the delusion that a man-eating rabbit with two heads lives in his shed, and he keeps his shed locked for that reason (he doesn't want to be eaten by a two-headed man-eating rabbit), but he's actually more afraid of the doctors thinking he's crazy than he is of the two-headed man-eating rabbit because he also believes the rabbit's arms aren't very strong and the rabbit definitely won't be capable of breaking out of a locked shed.

Next, imagine that he confesses his delusion to a trusted friend, Bob, and Bob snitches on him to the doctors because Bob is understandably worried about Gary's sanity. When the doctors arrive, Gary yells to them "There is no two-headed man-eating rabbit in my shed!" out of fear of them taking him away to an acute mental health ward.

Well, in that case he really does believe that the two-headed man-eating rabbit really does exist, so he's actually lying to the doctors because he really does believe the very opposite to what he tells them. But this is all in spite of the fact that the very statement that he made, i.e.: "There is no two-headed man eating rabbit in my shed" is a completely true statement because there really is no two-headed man-eating rabbit in his shed at all.