On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote:
> [The Prime Minister believes that he gave a clear, simple, > straightforward and honest answer.] > > Sir Humphrey: Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, > simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably > assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, > inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you > communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and > demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of > sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources > of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be > expected to bear. > > Hacker: Epistemological — what are you talking about? > > Sir Humphrey: You told a lie. > > Hacker: A lie? > > Sir Humphrey: A lie. > > Hacker: What do you mean, a lie? > > Sir Humphrey: I mean you…lied. Yes, I know this is a difficult > concept to get across to a politician. You…ah yes, you did not tell the > truth. Err... lawyers would probably face a similar difficulty in understanding what the deuce Sir Humphrey is on about. Probably why so many lawyers become politicians all over the world. Some lies are necessary to avoid a lot of future pain. And nothing is easily ascribed the status of a "lie" - there's always a grain of truth to it. So I think Sir Humphrey needs to understand that most lies are white, unless proven to be otherwise. Mere insistence that one has stated a lie will get you nowhere with either a politician or a lawyer. Other professionals should feel free to send their thoughts. I'd love to hear a scientist's perspective on this.
