I do so; I must have missed the "regardless of it's truth value" bit. Rule 2202 uses correctness and not truth (and rule 2367 says "considered inaccurate and incorrect", which makes the statement of this CFJ true but incorrect. Rule 591 says "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true"; this does not depend on the correctness of the statement, so I judge CFJ 3244 TRUE.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:01 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The statement of CFJ 3240 is messy, and therefore considered >> inaccurate (i.e. false; accuracy refers to truth when applied to >> statements and not, for example, projectiles), which would imply that >> the statement of this CFJ is true. However, the statement of this CFJ >> is also messy, and therefore considered false. However, the statement >> that the statement of this CFJ is false is also messy, so it cannot be >> accurately described as false. It also cannot be accurately described >> as true, so I judge UNDECIDABLE. > > I intend to call for reconsideration with two support - the statement > of CFJ 3240 is considered messy, therefore inaccurate, but *not* > false: the purpose of Rule 2367's "messy statements are considered > inaccurate and incorrect regardless of their truth value" is to > introduce an artificial definition of "inaccurate" different from > "false", and the clause does not make much sense if interpreted > otherwise (since "false" is by definition a truth value; I guess you > could say it's "considered" false regardless of whether it actually is > false, but that's not consistent with general Agoran usage of > "considered" as "def="). Though the wording of Rule 591 makes > UNDECIDABLE appropriate *anyway*, FALSE is also appropriate, and would > probably be a more fair judgement in this case - UNDECIDABLE is, for > instance, also appropriate for statements that would usually be judged > UNDETERMINED for vagueness (although I'm not sure if it's possible to > construct such a statement that's also a turtle - see CFJ 1799). > > The root issue here would be addressed by my recent proto; I guess > I'll go ahead and propose it.
