Subject: [lojban] Re: [[email-masked]: use of "agree/disagree" referring to non-existant objects]

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:46:59 -0500

Janell Tessaro scripsit:

> This is a long shot. I am hoping that you will take the time to
> settle an argument in our office about a survey on bicycles:

Such arguments, like the one about whether the third millennium begins in
2000 or 2001, are not really subject to "settling" by third parties, since
they depend on incompatible shared assumptions. However, I will take a shot.

> The automatic response to date from all respondents who do not own a
> bike has been: "not applicable"
> 
> The author of the survey says that "disagree" should be the obvious
> response since any individual that does not have a bicycle could not
> benefit from any additional accommodations on busses for bikes.

This argument seems to me unjustified. Desiring the right to bring one's own
bicycle on the bus is equivalent to desiring everyone to have the right to
bring their bicycles on the bus, since this right is going to be granted to
everybody or else nobody. I, for example, own no bicycle, but I would favor
the granting of this right, since it would encourage the use of bicycles,
which I hold to be a Good Thing for environmental reasons.

> I say that the "disagree"response (+ all other choices currently
> available) presumes ownership of a bicycle which does not exist, and
> therefore there needs to be a N/A choice.

I think you are quite right. If the statement were "I like to drive my car
very fast", it would be absurd for me to agree or disagree, since I don't
own a car, and this is not a case where "my car" is just a proxy for
"anyone's car", since the question is about what I like, not what others like.

> Who is right? 

A hard question.

-- 
We call nothing profound [email-masked]
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com