All Contexts are Simultaneously True and False

[Eodnhoj7]

Example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes.

The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal.

[Impenitent]

some assertions eclipse others

-Imp

[bahman]

How about the title? Is it true and false at the same time?

[Scott Mayers]

Example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes.

The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal.

Nice and simple for an OP.

I agree to what I believe you mean. I know that I used to think of how you could interpret a child's 'mistake' in those early elementary "tests" of comparison using three images that ask you "which two are the same?"

Technically each can be 'true' if you could read the mind of the child who understands the test but gets it 'wrong'. Given any two of three things, some realistic comparison can be recognized. The best these types of tests do is to beg a common means of expressing things. All answers though are 'correct' by some relatively logical understanding.

As to something like, "Einstein exists\", such is both true or false and can include the apparent contradiction of being both true and false when one might define the DOMAIN as being larger: "Einstein exists" in the DOMAIN, "some given period of the 20th Century", is both true AND false.

For Impotent, ...er....Imptenitent,

some assertions eclipse others

-Imp

[AlexW]

True or false always depends on the applied framework of thought.
Its as simple as that.

So... why do people argue? Because they believe their framework is the only true and correct one...

[Eodnhoj7]

How about the title? Is it true and false at the same time?

It is true as self referential, false as open to further interpretation....so yes it is true and false.

[Eodnhoj7]

True or false always depends on the applied framework of thought.
Its as simple as that.

So... why do people argue? Because they believe their framework is the only true and correct one...

The framework is always right and wrong given context.

For example, using Scott Mayers' example:

1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but potential F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but potential T


Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value as well.

[Eodnhoj7]

Example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes.

The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal.

Nice and simple for an OP.

I agree to what I believe you mean. I know that I used to think of how you could interpret a child's 'mistake' in those early elementary "tests" of comparison using three images that ask you "which two are the same?"

Technically each can be 'true' if you could read the mind of the child who understands the test but gets it 'wrong'. Given any two of three things, some realistic comparison can be recognized. The best these types of tests do is to beg a common means of expressing things. All answers though are 'correct' by some relatively logical understanding.

As to something like, "Einstein exists\", such is both true or false and can include the apparent contradiction of being both true and false when one might define the DOMAIN as being larger: "Einstein exists" in the DOMAIN, "some given period of the 20th Century", is both true AND false.

For Impotent, ...er....Imptenitent,

some assertions eclipse others

-Imp

Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given.

[Scott Mayers]

True or false always depends on the applied framework of thought.
Its as simple as that.

So... why do people argue? Because they believe their framework is the only true and correct one...

The framework is always right and wrong given context.

For example:

1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but possible F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but possible T


Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value as well.

You appear to be coopting my example above as though it is yours here. I mentioned this example uniquely above. Can you please note that I said it at least?

[Eodnhoj7]

True or false always depends on the applied framework of thought.
Its as simple as that.

So... why do people argue? Because they believe their framework is the only true and correct one...

The framework is always right and wrong given context.

For example:

1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but possible F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but possible T


Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value as well.

You appear to be coopting my example above as though it is yours here. I mentioned this example uniquely above. Can you please note that I said it at least?

Sure.

[Scott Mayers]

Example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes.

The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal.

Nice and simple for an OP.

I agree to what I believe you mean. I know that I used to think of how you could interpret a child's 'mistake' in those early elementary "tests" of comparison using three images that ask you "which two are the same?"

Technically each can be 'true' if you could read the mind of the child who understands the test but gets it 'wrong'. Given any two of three things, some realistic comparison can be recognized. The best these types of tests do is to beg a common means of expressing things. All answers though are 'correct' by some relatively logical understanding.

As to something like, "Einstein exists\", such is both true or false and can include the apparent contradiction of being both true and false when one might define the DOMAIN as being larger: "Einstein exists" in the DOMAIN, "some given period of the 20th Century", is both true AND false.

For Impotent, ...er....Imptenitent,

some assertions eclipse others

-Imp

Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given.

This is what I'm saying is actually NOT the case. This type of test is also given in IQ tests but only represent what the educational institutes define as 'correct' to be correct or not by an understood standard. It is certainly 'correct' for the expected standards or it might represent that the child could be 'autistic' or has some alternate interpretation that is 'correct' from some perspective.

For example, (and I believe I gave this here in similar diagram-form in a thread or post years ago), if you have a circle, a non-isosceles triangle, and a square, you can always find two that any variation is 'true' by some principle of expression. For instance, the circle and square share 'symmetry'; the non-isosceles triangle and square share being shapes made with closed lines], and the circle and non-isosceles triangle share being "not a square [literally, of course]. The point is that some apparent 'errors' are not literal errors but unmatched ones based upon norms or expectations in some context.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nice and simple for an OP.

I agree to what I believe you mean. I know that I used to think of how you could interpret a child's 'mistake' in those early elementary "tests" of comparison using three images that ask you "which two are the same?"

Technically each can be 'true' if you could read the mind of the child who understands the test but gets it 'wrong'. Given any two of three things, some realistic comparison can be recognized. The best these types of tests do is to beg a common means of expressing things. All answers though are 'correct' by some relatively logical understanding.

As to something like, "Einstein exists\", such is both true or false and can include the apparent contradiction of being both true and false when one might define the DOMAIN as being larger: "Einstein exists" in the DOMAIN, "some given period of the 20th Century", is both true AND false.

For Impotent, ...er....Imptenitent,

Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given.

This is what I'm saying is actually NOT the case. This type of test is also given in IQ tests but only represent what the educational institutes define as 'correct' to be correct or not by an understood standard. It is certainly 'correct' for the expected standards or it might represent that the child could be 'autistic' or has some alternate interpretation that is 'correct' from some perspective.

For example, (and I believe I gave this here in similar diagram-form in a thread or post years ago), if you have a circle, a non-isosceles triangle, and a square, you can always find two that any variation is 'true' by some principle of expression. For instance, the circle and square share 'symmetry'; the non-isosceles triangle and square share being shapes made with closed lines], and the circle and non-isosceles triangle share being "not a square [literally, of course]. The point is that some apparent 'errors' are not literal errors but unmatched ones based upon norms or expectations in some context.

Yeah Scott, I am not disagreeing with you.

"Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given."

[Scott Mayers]

Yeah Scott, I am not disagreeing with you.

"Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given."

Okay, I see. I don't know how I mistook your accent. (??) My mind is a bit distant lately.

[Skepdick]

"Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given."

This approach immediately reduces the notion of "rationality" to verbalism - it stifles the application of knowledge and it encourages kids to parrot answers without any real, intuitive understanding of the material.

If the kid keeps getting the right answers, it's safe to assume that they have a system and it's not just a fluke. Why and how they got the answer shouldn't matter.

Exams don't test for understanding, they test your ability to pass exams by parroting the textbook. The moment you leave school you understand that shit is worthless in the real world.

There's an cheesy Indian movie I watched once, one of the (highly contrived) scenes in it conveys the message pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MlkASchodc

[Eodnhoj7]

"Part of testing a child should be an explanation of his or her rationality behind the answer given."

This approach immediately reduces the notion of "rationality" to verbalism - it stifles the application of knowledge and it encourages kids to parrot answers without any real, intuitive understanding of the material.

If the kid keeps getting the right answers, it's safe to assume that they have a system and it's not just a fluke. Why and how they got the answer shouldn't matter.

Exams don't test for understanding, they test your ability to pass exams by parroting the textbook. The moment you leave school you understand that shit is worthless in the real world.

There's an cheesy Indian movie I watched once, one of the (highly contrived) scenes in it conveys the message pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MlkASchodc

Part of the testing....

Intelligence testing is multidimensional, it is grounded in how the answers occur as much as the answers.