Quote:
|
Originally Posted by d*d
I was neither here nor there
bit of an illogical statement, do you not have to naturally fall into one of the camps - since one automatically negates the other and there seems to be room for only a yes or a no answer.
I know I'm going to regret asking this
|
If I flipped a coin, but didn't show you the result, and then asked you "do you believe that this coin landed heads up?", what would you answer?
How you answer would really comes down to how you interpret the words (as do many 'philosophical' problems). One approach could be:
If I don't believe "the coin landed heads up", then I automatically believe "the coin did not land heads up". Since I have no reason to believe either
"the coin landed heads up", nor
"the coin did not land heads up", I insist that I neither believe nor disbelieve the statement.
Alternatively:
Just because I don't believe "the coin landed heads up" does not automatically imply that I believe "the coin did not land heads up". Again, I have no reason to believe that
"the coin landed heads up", but disbelieving it this time around does not have any 'adverse consequences'. Hence I state outright that I don't believe that
"the coin landed heads up" (without necessarily implying that I believe it landed tails up).
I think the latter use of language is clearer, and more closely mirrors logical reasoning ('I do not believe that X' is not equivalent to 'I believe that not X'. But many people would argue along the lines of the former, which also seems acceptable.