On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 01:35, nch via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:23:42 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 19:29, nch via agora-business > > > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official > > > wrote: > > > > The below CFJ is 3837. I assign it to grok. > > > > > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837 > > > > > > > > =============================== CFJ 3837 > > > > =============================== > > > > > > > > Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia > > > > has an article titled "Sponge". > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== > > > > == > > > > > > Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define > > > a biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether > > > either individual fact is TRUE or FALSE. > > > > > > -- > > > nch > > > > Gratuitous response: > > > > When I published the statement, I intended "if and only if" to have > > the classical logic meaning, i.e. (I own at least one blot and English > > Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge") or (I do not own at least > > one blot and English Wikipedia does not have an article titled > > "Sponge"). > > > > I suppose it could be interpreted differently. However, I think my > > intent is important here, since interpreting natural language is > > fundamentally an act of figuring out what someone was trying to > > communicate. I don't know whether there are past judgements on the > > subject of whether intent matters in a CFJ statement. > > > > - Falsifian > > We agree on what the biconditional means, I think. The difference between my > argument and your argument is at the pragmatics level not at the syntactic > level. > > Your argument is a de re interpretation: If one of these two sides is > currently true, the whole statement is true. > > My argument is a de dicto interpretation: If this statement is true under all > conditions for either side, then the whole statement is true. That's why my > interpretation thinks a iff relationship needs to be pre-established. > > -- > nch
Isn't that still a difference in intended meaning? Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly enough the first time, but my intended meaning was "Right now at the moment I'm calling this CFJ, the truth value (true/false) of 'Falsifian owns at least one blot' equals the truth value of 'English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge"'". Also, CFJ statements about things like "Alice owns a blot" are usually assumed to be about the current situation at the time the statement was called. Are you saying the words "if and only if" override that default, and lead you interpret my statement as encompassing other times and/or situations other than the current one? Or am I misunderstanding your argument? - Falsifian
