[FOM] A question about dialetheism and sorites
SandyHodges at attbi.com
Tue Nov 12 19:19:34 EST 2002
Suppose I (and only I) see a teacup of a borderline color, so it is both
blue and not blue (in the dialethetic view). But I say only "The
teacup is not blue." As I understand it, I have told the truth.
Although I also could have truthfully said "The teacup is blue," I am
not obliged to do so, any more than I am obliged to say "The teacup has
Now suppose the saucer is definitely not blue, lacking any hint of
blueness. I say: "The saucer is not blue." I wish to be as
informative as possible about the blueness of the saucer. However, as
far as my audience can tell, I may be simply failing to say "The saucer
is blue." For all they can tell, the saucer may be both blue and not
blue and I am telling them only part of what I know about it. My
question is, is there any way, in a paraconsistent logic, for me to
assert that the saucer is not blue, and also not in the state of being
both blue and not blue?
In particular, does
~ Blue(saucer) & ~ ( Blue(saucer) & ~ Blue(saucer) )
have this meaning?
If the answer is that there is no way in first-order dialethetic logic
to say the saucer is not in the intermediate blue-and-not-blue state,
does it help any if I say "The saucer is not blue and 'The saucer is
blue' is not true."?
------- -- ---- - --- -- --------- -----
Sandy Hodges / Alameda, California, USA
mail to SandyHodges at attbi.com will reach me.
More information about the FOM