4 ms·

Simple answer on the metalevel: It's not clearly stated, because it's self referential. It's not a question by the GP's standards.

by conceit 11y ago

JadeNB 11y ago
Well, to be sure, if the definition of 'clearly stated' is made to exclude counterexamples to the assertion, then there are no counterexamples. :-) I don't think many people would include 'not self referential' in the definition of 'clearly stated'; for example, "is this question more than eight words long?" is pretty clear.
- MrManatee 11y ago
  To put my words in context, I was thinking about mathematical questions, such as "does there exist a curve that goes through every point in a square?". Everyone has some kind of intuitive understanding of what's a "curve", but mathematicians need a precise definition in order to make this question clear enough for mathematical study. (There is such a curve: the Hilbert curve.) It's not at all easy to recognize when a question is stated "clearly enough", and your questions provide an excellent example of this. The question "is this question more than eight words long?" refers to question itself (as a string), and in general, this kind of self-reference is perfectly harmless. The question "Is the answer to this question 'no'?" refers to its own answer, and this kind of self-reference is potentially problematic.
JadeNB 11y ago
Also, it occurs to me that the self reference can be avoided by an epistemologically insignificant dodge: "Are you about to say 'no'?" (This dodge is, I admit, a little dodgy; it admits things like "I wasn't planning to" as a perfectly sound answer. However, I'm taking it as read that we understand all questions as yes / no questions.)
- conceit 11y ago
  Implicitly, the "no" references the answer to the question itself, hence it's still selfreferential. In other words, the fallacy is to assume the following response was fixed to be an answer to the question. If I answered "no" it would be obvious that i wasn't planning to say "no" prior ("about") to the question. There is just no context in which the question would make sense the way you suggest. It's non-sense.

Simple answer on the metalevel: It's not clearly stated, because it's self referential. It's not a question by the GP's standards.

by conceit 11y ago

Simple answer on the metalevel: It's not clearly stated, because it's self referential. It's not a question by the GP's standards.

JadeNB 11y ago

Well, to be sure, if the definition of 'clearly stated' is made to exclude counterexamples to the assertion, then there are no counterexamples. :-) I don't think many people would include 'not self referential' in the definition of 'clearly stated'; for example, "is this question more than eight words long?" is pretty clear.

MrManatee 11y ago
To put my words in context, I was thinking about mathematical questions, such as "does there exist a curve that goes through every point in a square?". Everyone has some kind of intuitive understanding of what's a "curve", but mathematicians need a precise definition in order to make this question clear enough for mathematical study. (There is such a curve: the Hilbert curve.) It's not at all easy to recognize when a question is stated "clearly enough", and your questions provide an excellent example of this. The question "is this question more than eight words long?" refers to question itself (as a string), and in general, this kind of self-reference is perfectly harmless. The question "Is the answer to this question 'no'?" refers to its own answer, and this kind of self-reference is potentially problematic.

JadeNB 11y ago

Also, it occurs to me that the self reference can be avoided by an epistemologically insignificant dodge: "Are you about to say 'no'?" (This dodge is, I admit, a little dodgy; it admits things like "I wasn't planning to" as a perfectly sound answer. However, I'm taking it as read that we understand all questions as yes / no questions.)

conceit 11y ago
Implicitly, the "no" references the answer to the question itself, hence it's still selfreferential. In other words, the fallacy is to assume the following response was fixed to be an answer to the question. If I answered "no" it would be obvious that i wasn't planning to say "no" prior ("about") to the question. There is just no context in which the question would make sense the way you suggest. It's non-sense.