How do you respond?

What more could you ask for Pan? I'm using your definition. Deal with it. Look at where your argument leads...

--

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






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.

Doesn't matter what mine is. I'm using yours.

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






The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions.


1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.

2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there.

One must certainly have what it takes in order to acknowledge when and if they have misjudged a situation. If one does not have what it takes, then they cannot even fathom when and if they've misjudged.

What it takes is an adequate criterion.

Well, we can certainly hope that we have. However, I would think that if we establish and hold to an adequate criterion, then we would greatly increase our odds.

I would not agree that we will eventually know whether or not we have in most cases. Some perhaps, but not most and definitely not all.

How do we know if we judge correctly?

I think that that usually refers to another's guilt or innocence, or whether or not one is acting in accordance to the Bible.



Agreed. That is to come to two separate conclusions(judgments). The former being of another's character, the latter being of punishment for that character(or act based upon).



Yes and yes. Two different kinds of judgment.



It may unintentionally serve as punishment, or intentionally serve as punishment. That intention belongs to you. In other words, if you choose to avoid him without the aim to make him pay but rather just for the sake of avoiding him then you're not acting with the intent to punish.

If all judgment is personal, and it is, then just saying judgment rather than personal judgment is clearer. Saying personal judgment leads one to wonder what kind of judgment isn't personal. That being said, I would agree that judgment is based upon experience.

Yes, judgment is the same in that they are made by the individual(personal). I'm looking for something deeper - what judgment consists in/of.



That's a good question. A decision to act?



I would think that the simplest and most encompassing definition would be that a judgment is a conclusion.

There are relevant considerations at hand.

Don't be a putz Pan.

Not as stated because it does not adequately explain the context of our discussion at the time. That is pivotal. Please pay very close attention to the following explanation of the above answer, because it's crucial to understanding what I'm saying. I do not think that you understood my position the first time around, which I'll gladly take responsibility for. I'll attempt to make it as clear as possible this time...

I said that an honest answer of "no" would depend upon a nonsensical interpretation. If you wish to call that "my interpretation" that's ok because it is irrelevant to the point being made. While I proposed that interpretation, I was doing so in an attempt to show you that a nonsensical interpretation logically followed from your claims at that time. The first answer you gave was that Joe was "most certainly lying" which struck me as quite odd. Your supporting argument culminated in claiming that Joe's honest answer should be "no, of course not". Below is the original claim along with the subsequent argument(reasoning) you gave to support your judgment/conclusion. I've combined them in the same quote box for clarity purposes and ease of the explanation that follows.



You claimed that Joe was most certainly lying because if you take the question literally, he knew that Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question. Then you went on to say that Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe. So, at that point I was left wondering, for obvious reasons I hope, why you would claim on the one hand that Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, but on the other you would claim that Joe was most certainly lying because the question had been taken literally and he knew that Jill was in the room as he responded to her question. So, seeing how those two interpretation are incompatible with one another, we must take both of those into consideration independently. I'll look at the former first...

If Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, then his honest answer would have been "yes", because that would have been what he thought that she was asking for, and his answer would have captured that. It also follows that, based upon such an interpretation, "no" could not have possibly been an honest answer to the question. However, much to your credit, you have since clarified that particular explanation of Joe's assumption served only as your explanation of what I was assuming that Joe's interpretation was. That is an astute assessment. Indeed I was assuming that Joe was interpreting the statement as most folk do in everyday discourse.

Now, regarding the latter, it has been made clear by you that the original answer you gave that "Joe was most certainly lying" is based upon the notion that the question had been taken literally by Joe and that that interpretation included that he knew that Jill was in the room as he responded to her question. It is then clearly stated that Joe's honest answer should be "no, of course not" which, in turn, clearly implies that his honest answer should be based upon a literal interpretation because that particular answer does not serve as an honest one based upon the former interpretation.

So, if we apply the proposed criterion to what you've set out as a literal interpretation, then it follows that in order for "no, of course not" to serve as an honest answer to the question Joe must believe that Jill is asking him to count her and as a result gives an answer that he believes captures that. The point here being that that is to say that when Jill asks Joe if he is the only one there that Joe interprets the question to mean "Are you the only one here, or am I here too?"

Now, during normal everday discussion, most folk do not ask such a question expecting for the listener to count the questioner, because the questioner already knows that much, and as such it would be pointless to ask such a question. However, because the possibility certainly exists, I pursued a clarification of what the question meant, as Jill posed it to Joe, and you subsequently acknowledged that that is what the question meant, as it was posed.

Are we in agreement here?

Well AB, I care about being able to confidently assess another's honesty. I interact with folk on a daily basis, and I find that that alone constitutes sufficient reason to care. Not to mention that we live in a society, which depends upon being able to trust others. Which, in turn, once again constitutes sufficient reason to care about whether or not others are being honest.

Bear with me Pan, I'm formulating an appropriate response along with a subsequent explanation. I'll be done shortly...

Show me where I said that "no" could not have been a possible answer.

One cannot know a falsehood, and that includes your so-called 'acknowledgment'. I was not being evasive. Each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all.

Do you understand why that is the case?

Are you going to follow the procedure that I've set forth for assessing the adequacy of the criterion, or do you still have some objections following from the earlier ones? I've already answered those objections, without further attention from you. So, if you wish to discuss those further... now is the time.

You need to stop with the personal remarks and begin discussing the topic at hand.

The change belongs to you. As a result of that change, which happens to change one of the pivotal elements(Joe's knowledge), it is not my scenario. It is yours. I'd be more than glad to examine a scenario of your own making after we've finished with the context I've put forth.

The goal is to assess the adequacy of the criterion, and as I've already stated, we must test it with all possible scenarios - one at a time.

You're being ridiculous. There's no evasiveness in any of that. As is clearly stated...

Each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all.

Do you understand why that is the case?