A Scale from "lie" to "truth" LO16207

Mnr AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:30:06 GMT+2

Replying to LO16160 --

Dear Organlearners,

Steve Eskow <dreskow@magicnet.net> writes:

> Simon says:
>
> > I believe that there is a scale running between lies and truth and that
> > there is such a thing as absolute unarguable truth. It is this that we
> > should seek.

> Simon, show me the "scale" that "runs" between lies and truth. Is there
> really such a scale that allows you to weigh and measure truth and
> falsity, or is language deceiving you into believing this? or are you
> saying we can invent such a scale and all vote to behave as if it were
> real?

In a few centuries from now, the period 1950 - 1990 will be known as the
age of the abundance in paradigm shifts. In 1965 Zadeh published a paper
which began another paradigm shift, namely "fuzzy" logic.

Before 1965, every logician thought that logic had to be "crisp"
(categorical). In other words, a proposition allowed only two truth cases:
either 100% true or either 100% false. Then Zadeh began to show that these
two cases were only the two limiting values of uncountably many cases: x%
true or y% false where 0 < x,y < 100.

Here are two examples to illustrate the difference between "crisp" and
"fuzzy" logic:

CRISP
This tomato is red.
If a tomato is red, then the tomato is ripe.
Thus this tomato is ripe.

FUZZY
This tomato is slightly red.
If a tomato is red, then the tomato is ripe.
Thus this tomato is slightly ripe.

The "fuzzy" example is as real and correct as its "crisp" counterpart.
They show that we employ fuzzy logic extensively in our everyday lifes.
The more complex our experiences, the more we make use of "fuzzy" logic.

I have already mentioned the seven essentialities of creativity. On of
them is the essentiality "quantity-limit". The shift from "crisp" to
"fuzzy" is an acknowledgement of this essentiality in logic.

Although Simon perceives the range of fuzziness, he stresses the limits as
of categorical importance. I BELIEVE that the whole range of values and
not merely the limits are of categorical importance.

Steve, on the other hand, do not perceive Simon's range of fuzziness.
Yet he writes:
> You, Simon, believe there is such a "thing" as an absolutely
> unarguable truth. I don't: I argue with that proposition. So you're
> clearly wrong. Right?
Steve's own proposition is itself a "fussy" proposition - he
includes all possibilities, except the 100% possibility!

Obviously, since I used the word BELIEVE above, Steve's
> If he continues to believe it, he is not learning!
also seems to apply to me because I have been believing in the
truth of these seven essentialities of creativity since I discovered
them and will continue to do so. In the mean timel I will keep on
questioning them, trying to find a better way to express them.

I wonder what Steve's definition of learning is. From his
> If he continues to believe it, he is not learning!
I am inclined to infer the following:
learning entails the termination of beliefs.
I cannot ever agree to such a definition.

Best wishes

-- 

At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>