From a-rosta@alphaphe.com Fri Apr 26 12:15:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a-rosta@alphaphe.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 26 Apr 2002 19:15:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 47470 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 19:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2002 19:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.alphaphe.net) (217.33.150.223) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 19:15:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 21724 invoked by uid 101); 26 Apr 2002 19:15:28 -0000 Received: from host213-1-44-105.webport.bt.net (HELO oemcomputer) (213.1.44.105) by smtp.alphaphe.net with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 19:15:28 -0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] So you think you're logical? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:16:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-EDATA: smtp.alphaphe.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AlphaPhe.Net (www.alphaphe.net) From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110020381 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >So? I got them all right each time through. does this prove that {ganai... > >gi...} is really the right thing for "if... then..."? (Or does it prove > >that > >I am professionally weird?) > > I thought it very interesting that 75% of people get them wrong, > and that this drops to 40% in the case of contexts with cheating. > That means we're not really relying on logic when dealing with > these sorts of problems. > > The question would be whether the results would be better if the > problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular > connective is more transparent. My bet is that the results wouldn't be better. > And what would happen if the > problems were worded in English something like: > > "The rule governing the production of the cards states that a > card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the > colour yellow on the other." People would tend to read that as an exclusive or. I always feel that translating to a disjunction makes things clearer (I tend to do it on my own account), but I don't think the fundamental point of the Wason & followers findings would change; the same discrepancy would remain between our abilities to process abstract versus concrete ideas, and general versus ethical ones. > That's how a lojbanist would read it. Would we get a higher > percenatge of right answers? Yes, if you mean actual Lojbanists, since we self-select mainly on grounds of our interest in logic. --And.