felipec.substack.com
Changing someone's mind is very difficult, that's why I like puzzles most people get wrong: to try to open their mind. Challenging the claim that 2+2 is unequivocally 4 is one of my favorites to get people to reconsider what they think is true with 100% certainty.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's a red herring. We're not talking about bits. We're talking about the information we have about your example, which was given in english.
Liar. The end of the week being sunday was included in your description of the example.
Not all information is incomplete in the sense that reasoning from it leads to false conclusions. Stop defending your fallacious argument.
The information in English is limited too. Information is always limited.
"Tomorrow is Monday" has limited information.
This was my example:
The case where the week ends in Saturday is included. If today is Sunday we say:
Tomorrow is Monday (if the week ends in Sunday)
Tomorrow is Monday (if the week ends in Saturday)
My example was crystal clear in explaining that the day the week ends does not matter in describing what day comes after Sunday. This information is not available from the phrase "tomorrow is Monday".
You claim the information is available because if the week ends in Sunday "we both know" when the week ends. No, we don't, because I don't. If you want to claim you know when the week ends from the phrase "tomorrow is Monday" go ahead, I do not know.
And it doesn't seem to me you are engaging with my argument.
Exactly. And because the information is limited, relevant information is missing, and you can't make your argument. If you include the missing information, e.g. by saying "Tomorrow is monday, calendar week [current+1]", it becomes obvious that your claim is false, your example only appears to support your claim because information is omitted. It's evidently possible to include this information. Talking about "limited information" is nothing but a smokescreen to hide your attempt to deceive by strategic omission.
I was specifically addressing the other case (because "this doesn't change if the end of the week is saturday" is obviously irrelevant when the first part 'this' refers to is wrong.)
No, I claim I know when the week ends from the phrase "the week ends in sunday", which was included in your example. You're playing obtuse.
That's because you're not understanding (or pretending to not understand) my critique thereof.
And this claim is simply not true. It does matter if we are interested in what week it is. Your example doesn't show that because it's just colloquial speech where (relevant for us) information is omitted, which is the opposite of crystal clear.
I showed that by giving a counterexample, where it does matter.
Information is always missing.
No, you are deliberately not engaging with my argument.
Not information that is available and relevant to the argument. I already explained that to you. Stop defending your fallacious argument.
To the degree I am, it's because you're trying to set up a red herring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link