Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/11/2024 14:05, Mikko wrote:

[...] The statement itself does not change
when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
it.

    Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.

That is not a disagreement.

    I disagree. [:-)]

Then show how two statements about distinct topics can disagree.

       You've had the free, introductory five-minute argument;  the
half-hour argument has to be paid for. [:-)]

       [Perhaps more helpfully, "distinct" is your invention.  One same
statement can be either true or false, a mistake or a lie, depending on
the context (time. place and motivation) within which it is uttered.
Plenty of examples both in everyday life and in science, inc maths.  Eg,
"It's raining!", "The angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.", "The
Sun goes round the Earth.".  Each of those is true in some contexts, false
and a mistake in others, false and a lie in yet others.  English has clear
distinctions between these, which it is useful to maintain;  it is not
useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg when
the statement has not yet been uttered.]

There is another sense in which something could be a lie.  If, for
example, I empatically asserted some view about the minutiae of medical
surgery, in opposition to the standard view accepted by practicing
surgeons, no matter how sincere I might be in that belief, I would be
lying.  Lying by ignorance.

Peter Olcott is likewise ignorant about mathematical logic.  So in that
sense, the false things he continually asserts _are_ lies.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
   Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
   Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Peerson

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).