Positing a hypothetical scenario, well sorta...

The natives lived near a volcano. Within their belief system were the ideas that when the god of the volcano was angry, the volcano erupted and lava flows began anew. When this happened, it could be 'appeased' by sacrificing a virgin. The ritual was to take place by throwing her down into the main reservoir of molten lava. Throughout antiquity, these beliefs held firm and were passed on through stories and such. Sometimes, soon after the ritual was complete, the activity level of the volcano would settle down. Whenever that happened, it confirmed the set of beliefs, and perpetuated the continuation of the sacrifice. To the contrary, when the activity level increased afterwards, the natives concluded that the girl/woman was not a virgin.

Were the natives illogical in their beliefs? If not, why. If so, why?

The topic is about a criterion for belief, in addition to what it takes for something to be a bit/piece of knowledge. Specifically, I'm not talking about knowing how to breathe, how to cry, and that sort of stuff. That is innate know-how. Rather, I'm interested in discussing what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something(X), and what constitutes an adequate criterion to call something(X) knowledge.

I'll leave it there and see where it goes.

Assuming that there is an equilibrium point somewere between te crust and core, and further assuming that it is possible that the speed of the ball traveling towards the center of earth is insufficent to effectively propel it through the 'equilibrium point', I would further posit that it could be the case that the ball could/would eventually reach a point where it would just float in mid air.

Howdy boredinaz0six, metalwing, and Pan.

Rule #2 is altered to add that those participants can continue adding to other rules, even though they cannot add a new one.

How awesome boredinaz0six is even though you broke #1.

This is a game, for funsies only. Each poster creates and numbers a rule following current numerical order, or adds to an existing one. There is only one condition. The new rule and/or addition must not violate the ones being used at the time. I say "at the time" because as we will soon see, the rules are subject to change...



I'll start it off.

1.) All posters must begin each post with a courteous greeting to each and every participant, prior to adding a rule.

The best has not been engaged by your good self. To quite the contrary, you've neglected to give it the attention that it deserves. I thought you understood earlier. I was apparently mistaken about that. I don't blame you for not wanting to engage in what has just been revealed, for even the most difficult of folk find it very hard to continue arguing for a position after it becomes obvious to them how ill-founded it is.

Be well Pan. Hopefully something good has come out of all this.

I'll join you in further discussion if, and ONLY IF, you address what was just written regarding your intitial claim(s) - which is what began this discussion - with something philosophically interesting.

IOW, justify your initial claims in light of what has just been shown in my post on Sat 04/14/12 @ 02:36 AM. Until then, my work is done here, and you can laugh @ me all you like.

Jill did not ask over the phone. The question is irrelevant. The following isn't...

--

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that Joe's honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No" based upon that interpretation, because if Joe has enough mental capacity and understanding of the English language to infer/assume that "Are you alone?" means "Are you isolated from others?" then he clearly ought be able to figure out that because Jill is asking in person then she is not asking him to count her. She can see that much for herself.

So, if, and only if, Joe assumes that Jill meant "Are you isolated from others?" AND he believed that she was asking him to count her, then "No" would serve to be an honest answer. It would follow that if he answered "Yes" based upon such an mal-formed understanding, then he would be lying.

However, and this is important...

You've claimed that his honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No." You're arguing that his interpretation SHOULD HAVE been "Are you isolated from others?" You're arguing that he SHOULD HAVE counted Jill, which entails that he SHOULD HAVE believed that she was asking him to count her.

So, I must ask...

Why should Joe not just interpret the question in the manner that nearly all folk do when answering that question? In other words, why should Joe act as if 1.he's being a smartarse or 2.he doesn't understand what common questions mean?



--

Say something philosophically interesting or stay on the porch. Are you ready, willing, and/or able to do that?

Comfortable up there, I see.

Ready yet?



Make an argument. Say something philosophically interesting or stay on the porch.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that Joe's honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No" based upon that interpretation, because if Joe has enough mental capacity and understanding of the English language to infer/assume that "Are you alone?" means "Are you isolated from others?" then he clearly ought be able to figure out that because Jill is asking in person then she is not asking him to count her. She can see that much for herself.

So, if, and only if, Joe assumes that Jill meant "Are you isolated from others?" AND he believed that she was asking him to count her, then "No" would serve to be an honest answer. It would follow that if he answered "Yes" based upon such an mal-formed understanding, then he would be lying.

However, and this is important...

You've claimed that his honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No." You're arguing that his interpretation SHOULD HAVE been "Are you isolated from others?" You're arguing that he SHOULD HAVE counted Jill, which entails that he SHOULD HAVE believed that she was asking him to count her.

So, I must ask...

Why should Joe not just interpret the question in the manner that nearly all folk do when answering that question? In other words, why should Joe act as if 1.he's being a smartarse or 2.he doesn't understand what common questions mean?

Now...

How is it the case that Joe most certainly lied, and why on earth are you claiming that his honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No"?

Again, it is more than apparent that you do not recognize your own mistake(s). What you've offered below is chock full of assumption and inference, regardless of whether or not you recognize it, or admit it to yourself or me. That much is crystal clear, regardless of what you think "face value" is.



Not at all.

That IS an interpretation, one of which that clearly assumes/infers that "Are you alone" means "Are you isolated from others?"

You are arguing that Joe, in order to answer Jill's question honestly, should intepret the question as above, and count Jill when offering his answer.

Here's the claim...



The following was given to support that claim.



1. Saying Joe "did lie if you take the question and Joe's knowledge literally" is to say that how "you" take the question determines Joe's honesty. That is patently false. However, I will grant a charitable reading and assume that you know that how a person(a hypothetical Joe, in this case) takes the question, in addition to how he answers will determine such a thing.

2. If we conclude that Joe "should have" honestly answered "No", simply because he knew that Jill was also in the room even though we know that Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone beside herself and Joe, then we are saying that Joe should ignore what Jill was asking for, and instead give an answer that doesn't satisfy what he believed she was asking him for.

That, for anyone paying attention, is the epitome of a dishonest answer, and being a dishonest person for that matter.

--

A few things that have become clear here. You are arguing that Joe should answer dishonestly, and you either do not know the difference between an honest answer and a dishonest one, or you do and are being blatantly dishonest. In other words, if Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone else besides herself and Joe, then his only honest answer would be one that satisfies what he believes Jill was asking for, and thus it would have to be "Yes" because Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.

Your answers to my questions correlate to what you've projected onto Joe.

There is a difference between my pointing that out, which is what I have done numerous times, and my insisting that that is a literal interpretation. Nowhere in this thread have I insisted upon such a thing. You - evidently - cannot see where you've went wrong. I cannot explain it any clearer. That is the interpretation required for your claims to be true. Your claims logically imply that interpretation.

If you wish to argue otherwise you must offer something more than "Are you alone?" as an interpretation of "Are you alone?" because THAT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION.

An interpretation attributes meaning to the expression. An intepretation of a question necessarily assumes what information is being asked for, and an answer follows. If you cannot grasp that, there is no point in continuing here.

First of all, the last claim here conflicts with the rest, is patently false, and it shows that you base your belief upon impossible notions. It is impossible for an answer to not infer meaning that is not stated, because all meaning is inferred.

The following bears repeating...

So, you've claimed that "Joe is most certainly lying". That conclusion, as shown above, is premissed upon the notion that Joe knew Jill was in the room as he responded, and he assumed that Jill meant anyone besides her and him. Your stating that much clearly implies that you think/believe that Joe should not have assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, and that by virtue of that assumption, he is most certainly lying.

I'm telling you that Joe's counting Jill still requires an assumption be made upon Joe's part... and a dubious one at that. You have further asserted that Joe's honest answer SHOULD BE "No, of course not" based upon the aforementioned considerations. So, you're saying that - in order for Joe to give an honest answer - Joe should not assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, but rather Joe SHOULD assume that Jill meant for Joe to count her.

Ah, nevermind...

You can't show such a thing because I haven't insisted such a thing. Rather, that nonsensical interpretation came about because I was pointing out that that would be required from Joe in order for your initial claims about Joe's honesty to be true.

Ya just ain't figured it out yet, dude.

I insisted that?

Hmph.

Show me.

How droll. Sad really.

So your only point in continuing is to continue to show that you'll not defend the claims you've made, that you'll continue to talk about things that do not matter, that you do not understand how language/meaning works, in addition to showing that you also do not know what a fact is.

There is no "exact same" interpretation - literal or otherwise - of any expression, including "Are you alone?". If you see it differently, then give an argument for it, and I'll be glad to show you you're mistaken, because you are. Your claims do not correspond to how language/meaning works. Expressions are made up of words. Words have several definitions all of which are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, etc. All "literal" interpretations, if by "literal" we mean how the words are defined, which is the vacuous approach you've employed, then there are as many "literal" interpretations as there are words in the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions, ad infinitum.

You're arguing from ignorance.

If, and only if, you stated what you believed to be the case; you told 'the truth'.



I've learned a few things of value, I believe. I've also clearly demonstrated that I'll waste a lot of time talking to utterly irrational folk.



That's nothing new though.