Yes-No thinking.

[ComradeMan]

Hello everyone,

Does anyone else think that we are all becoming far too influenced by what I call binary thinking? i.e. yes-no. I am not talking about philosophers or intellectuals in their ivory towers with their lofty thoughts- but just in general :)

I have noticed that a common source of conflict I have is that people think that just because I do not perhaps support their view 100% I automatically fall into the opposing camp.

Isn't this an over-simplification of things? Is it not flawed too. I blame it on TV and Western culture that sees everything in black and white, yes and no, vote for us or vote for them etc. The role of Abrahamic belief systems in general does not help because there is no room for a "maybe"- as I see it at least.

Take this puzzle-
Can a liar admit to being a liar?

If he say's he is a liar then he is telling the truth and in that moment would not be lying so he would not be a liar, and thus would be lying by telling the truth,.

If he say's he is not a liar then he is lying and thus cannot admit it.

Of course it could be argued that a liar does not necessarily need to lie all the time- and that gives us the middle-ground.

Interestingly enough, some ancient languages didn't really have the exact equivalents of yes and no in the modern sense, some Celtic languages still do not have that sense. Modern English retains a little of the idea along with Portuguese of "Yes, I do" or "No, I don't" constructions.

Or is it that I read too many books on Zen?:)

[Hit The North]

Doesn't your paradox only work if the liar claims that he lies all the time?

Meanwhile, the claim that Western culture sees things in black and white (as if it is only capable of seeing things this way), sounds like a too simplistic claim in itself.


Or is it that I read too many books on Zen?

Yes. Leave it alone. Doctor's orders.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


Can a liar admit to being a liar?

If he say's he is a liar then he is telling the truth and in that moment would not be lying so he would not be a liar, and thus would be lying by telling the truth.

Depends on the wording; as you probably know there are answers to the liar paradox, hence strengthened liar paradoxes had to be invented.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm

If a liar says "I am lying", the response will be: "About what?" And then he/she is trapped.

Of he/she says "I am a liar", the response is "And what is a liar then"? If he/she tells us, then he/she is not a liar. On the other hand, if they try to mislead us, we merely tell then we do not believe them. The 'paradox' is defused.


Interestingly enough, some ancient languages didn't really have the exact equivalents of yes and no in the modern sense, some Celtic languages still do not have that sense. Modern English retains a little of the idea along with Portuguese of "Yes, I do" or "No, I don't" constructions.

And we have 'maybe' too.


Or is it that I read too many books on Zen?

Probably.

[cska]

Rosa Lichtenstein is just making use of language ambiguity. How about "this statement is false". Here you can argue that true/false just doesn't cut it (exclusion of the middle, see logical constructivism). You can say that the statement is somewhat true an somewhat false. However, consider: "this statement is not true". This isn't much of a paradox really. It is overdetermined. It is like saying X=2, X=1, what is X?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

cska:


Rosa Lichtenstein is just making use of language ambiguity. How about "this statement is false". Here you can argue that true/false just doesn't cut it (exclusion of the middle, see logical constructivism). You can say that the statement is somewhat true an somewhat false. However, consider: "this statement is not true". This isn't much of a paradox really. It is overdetermined. It is like saying X=2, X=1, what is X?

Let's take "This statement is false".

Which statement is meant, then?

You are assuming that the reference of the indexical (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/) is clear.

[ComradeMan]

Here's an ancient riddle or thought experiment that my Palestinian friend told me

"Everynight a dog pisses on the tent of the unfortunate Bedouin".

Is the Bedouin unfortunate because the dog pisses on his tent?
Or does the dog piss on his tent because he is unfortunate?
:)

[Hit The North]

With the data provided we must conclude that the Bedouin is unfortunate to have the dog pissing on his tent night after night. We have no other data to assess if the Bedouin is unfortunate in other matters. Meanwhile, even if the Bedouin is considered generally unfortunate by his fellows, the dog cannot know this and therefore it is unlikely to be a motivation for its befouling of the Bedouin's tent.

I recommend that the Bedouin takes a gun to the pesky mutt.

[Meridian]

Is the Bedouin unfortunate because the dog pisses on his tent?
Or does the dog piss on his tent because he is unfortunate?


Neither (that means no to both your questions), it does not make sense to ask that question, because we are only given this sentence;

"Everynight a dog pisses on the tent of the unfortunate Bedouin".
Here we are given a name "the unfortunate Bedouin". All we know is that "a dog" (the subject) pisses on "the tent of the unfortunate Bedouin" (the object). Correlation, cause, we don't know and have no reason to know based on the given phrase. The sentence simply claims this is true: Every night X pisses on Y.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's just a sentence taken out of context.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CM:


Is the Bedouin unfortunate because the dog pisses on his tent?
Or does the dog piss on his tent because he is unfortunate?


This is no more interesting than:


She attended a pretty little girls school.

To use Chomsky's example.

Both depend on how they are parsed grammatically.

[ComradeMan]

It was only an old riddle........

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A better one is a WW1 newspaper headline:


General flies back to front.

Or, one from the 1960s:


Woman lay priests at Vatican council.

[mikelepore]

Most of the posts above emphasize examples where binary yes-no terms are inappropriate. But there are also many cases where binary choice is necessary. Either carry an umbrella or don't carry one. Either build a new dam or don't build one. Why does the first post say that we are "far too influenced by what I call binary thinking"? How can it be determined that numbers of decisions that are necessarily binary versus non-binary are not in the correct proportion to the amount of influence on our thinking?