0

You confirm that this is true. In which case..... positive declaration (eg. 'x' exists).

I would suggest that the above statement is an 'if, then' proposition.

Anybody making this statement cannot be considered as 'making a claim'. It cannot be considered as "I definitively claim that 'x' exists".

Rather, the proposition is dependent upon somebody else's statement.

I recognise that this is a fine judgement, as a positive statement is being declared. However, I believe that the clause "in which case" confirms that this is a proposition, rather than a definitive 'I claim that 'x' exists'.

Am I correct?

The background to this question is fraught with difficulty.

It revolves around the limits of human knowledge, dealing with globally accepted, observable facts, that have no known explanation.

As a result, experts, posting on certain forums that operate at a certain level, are reticent to become embroiled in the discussion of potential explanation.

As a result... it is better to avoid an investigative path that leads to such a discussion.

Engineers have no such reticence... "it's all cause and effect, so deal with it".

On a Personal Note

I do accept the error that I made, when referring to the 'you'.

I should have said:

If this is true. Then..... positive declaration (eg. 'x' exists).

This was an honest human error, primarily due to my actual reliance on the expert at hand.

This was unfair on him.... particularly considering the gravity of what was being discussed. (I will apologise to him).

Anyway... apart from my human error.... I still rest with my title (unless a better title can be proposed).

Here is the link to the physics discussion.

It was shut down because it was deemed that I was falsely claiming something.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/down-convertor-2-photon-entanglement-explanation.869246/#post-5457125

A related problem of English comprehension is being discussed on this thread:

Does 'no useful info' unequivocally mean 'some info is present?

Community
  • 1
Marco-UandL
  • 3
  • 4
  • I think you are confusing language with logic. You are looking for a precision which simply does not exist: for some people you may be correct; for others you may be incorrect; for some your question may be incoherent. Your title "mistaken" implies that you think there is a definitive answer (and that you are right). I don't believe that to be the case. – Colin Fine Apr 28 '16 at 17:44
  • Colin... I understand your concept... I recognise that within language, precision can be difficult to achieve.... the title itself being a nightmare - to find a title that hooks an interesting response.... can we accept 'that' as publicity, and it worked, by way of two interesting responses (with which we can work).... so I will edit the question, and repost here when it is done, after also replying to the 2nd responder.... thanks for your interest! – Marco-UandL Apr 28 '16 at 21:05

1 Answers1

1

The given formulation implies an if-then relation, but goes beyond that in using a second-person pronoun and thus establishing an interpersonal context, whereby we move from the impersonal realm of logic to that of rhetoric.

You are correct that we cannot surely infer from this utterance that the speaker believes or is asserting that x exists. We would need further context even to be sure that the speaker intends the interlocutor (“you”) to believe that: the context could be a reductio ad absurdum by which the speaker is trying to persuade the interlocutor to renounce the claim, already “confirmed,” that “this is true.” But if the speaker intends the interlocutor to conclude and believe that x exists, and the speaker actually believes x not to exist, then the speaker is a dishonest rhetor.

Brian Donovan
  • 16,289
  • Yes... I accept that my boolean logic was not perfect.... As a human, mistakes are made.... I can't go back and change them.... but the meaning... the proposition... was fairly put (I believe it reflected my thoughts)... I couldn't 'claim' a theory because my proposition was entirely based upon logical consequences (arising from another person).... However, let me fill in the gaps, by editing the question.... when finished, I will comment here again, to alert you to the full info being at your disposal.... Thanks for replying. – Marco-UandL Apr 28 '16 at 21:11