On 6/1/2020 6:23 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 19:29, nch via agora-business > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>> The below CFJ is 3837. I assign it to grok. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837 >>> >>> =============================== CFJ 3837 =============================== >>> >>> Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia >>> has an article titled "Sponge". >>> >>> ========================================================================== >> >> Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define a >> biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether either >> individual fact is TRUE or FALSE. >> >> -- >> nch > > Gratuitous response: > > When I published the statement, I intended "if and only if" to have > the classical logic meaning, i.e. (I own at least one blot and English > Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge") or (I do not own at least > one blot and English Wikipedia does not have an article titled > "Sponge"). > > I suppose it could be interpreted differently. However, I think my > intent is important here, since interpreting natural language is > fundamentally an act of figuring out what someone was trying to > communicate. I don't know whether there are past judgements on the > subject of whether intent matters in a CFJ statement.
It's ok to use intent in the arguments, but not so much in the actual act of judgement. In other words, it's ok to say "because the statement was worded weirdly, it's technically FALSE. So I judge FALSE. But the question the caller was obviously trying to get at is TRUE." Then, future judges respect it as a precedent of TRUE for the intended question. But FALSE is still the official judgement. Because what makes a judgement "appropriate" as per R591 is its specific relationship to the statement, not the intended statement. -G.
