4 ms·

I don't see how your example leads to a contradiction. If 1 and 2 hold, and no person considers Sally to have more than one color hair, this seems fine. >There

by ikeboy 11y ago

I don't see how your example leads to a contradiction. If 1 and 2 hold, and no person considers Sally to have more than one color hair, this seems fine. >There is a box in a room that is painted yellow. A group of people is asked to state the color of the box but they are all colorblind and state that it is grey. The consensus about the color of the box is clearly wrong in this case. My proposal doesn't depend on people actually being asked. It's more of "what would people say, if they were asked, and given all relevant objective information". Your scenario is ruled out.

coldtea 11y ago
>My proposal doesn't depend on people actually being asked. It's more of "what would people say, if they were asked, and given all relevant objective information". Your scenario is ruled out. This clarification rules out your proposal as any kind of actually implementable system then, because it collapses to having a single authority who "knows" (how?) what the people would say. If it doesn't involve actually asking people, then it's not really a polling of perceptions, but some person's idea of what those perceptions would be.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  It's supposed to answer "what does claim X mean". It's not meant to be implemented. An approximation is carried out every time someone pulls out a dictionary to resolve a dispute over common usage.
n0us 11y ago
There is a difference between saying that "it is 50% true that Sally's hair is red" and "it is true that Sally's hair is 50% red". It isn't a scenario, it's a thought experiment. "given all relevant objective information" sounds much like the omniscient speaker which is central to the epistemic theory.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I still don't see any contradiction. A single omniscient speaker can't work, because people will disagree even with all relevant objective facts agreed upon. When two people dispute whether something is a heap, they aren't arguing over objective facts.

by ikeboy 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>My proposal doesn't depend on people actually being asked. It's more of "what would people say, if they were asked, and given all relevant objective information". Your scenario is ruled out. This clarification rules out your proposal as any kind of actually implementable system then, because it collapses to having a single authority who "knows" (how?) what the people would say. If it doesn't involve actually asking people, then it's not really a polling of perceptions, but some person's idea of what those perceptions would be.

ikeboy 11y ago
It's supposed to answer "what does claim X mean". It's not meant to be implemented. An approximation is carried out every time someone pulls out a dictionary to resolve a dispute over common usage.

n0us 11y ago

There is a difference between saying that "it is 50% true that Sally's hair is red" and "it is true that Sally's hair is 50% red". It isn't a scenario, it's a thought experiment. "given all relevant objective information" sounds much like the omniscient speaker which is central to the epistemic theory.

ikeboy 11y ago
I still don't see any contradiction. A single omniscient speaker can't work, because people will disagree even with all relevant objective facts agreed upon. When two people dispute whether something is a heap, they aren't arguing over objective facts.