Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tI18b-0000ZaC; Wed, 22 Nov 95 00:26 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 724A80CB ; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:45:59 +0100 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:45:03 -0800 Reply-To: "Peter L. Schuerman" Sender: Lojban list From: "Peter L. Schuerman" Subject: Re: scalar polarity X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <23106.9511211814@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Content-Length: 1543 Lines: 35 > > > > je'ucai > [= almost 100% true] > > > > je'u(sai) > > > > je'uru'e > > > > je'ucu'i > > > > je'unairu'e > > > > je'unai(sai) > > > > je'unaicai > [= almost 0% true] It seems bizarre to divide a statement into 100 parts and then decide how many of those parts are true and how many are not. It seems equally bizarre to divide it into seven parts, or nine parts, or any standard number of parts. A statement is (according to a given set of criteria) either true, false, or made up of both true and false elements. The number of elements in a statement is dependent on interpretation and analysis, so counting them is not going to give consistent results. That is, true/false is not actually a scalar dichotomy... it only looks that way if a statement hasn't been properly analyzed. Scalar interpretation of truth boils down to making statements like "On a truth scale of 1 to 10, that's a 4." How useful is that? It seems to me that, even though you *can* say these things in Lojban, that all anyone *actually* needs is true, false, and part-true/part-false. The statement can be further analyzed as necessary to distinguish the elements and the truth or falsehood thereof. Statements like "partly true" and "partly almost true" make distinctions which are so subjective as to not convey any real information. Peter Schuerman plschuerman@ucdavis.edu Co-editor, SPECTRA Online for back issues: http://www.well.com/user/phandaal/