Forwarded from Working Man Memes (Howdy)
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Berta says that Greta tells lies. Greta says that Rosa tells lies. Rosa says that both Berta and Greta tell lies. Who is telling the truth?
We are looking for the combination of truth-telling and lying that does not lead to a contradiction.
Let’s say Berta is telling the truth. It follows that Greta is lying. So, since Greta is lying, Rosa must be telling the truth. But if she is telling the truth, then both Berta and Greta are lying, which contradicts our previous idea that Berta was telling the truth. Given that all of this emerged just from the assumption that Berta was telling the truth, she must be lying. This is a Reductio ad Absurdum, a form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to contradiction.
Now, we just have to test the idea that Berta is lying. If Berta lying also leads to a contradiction, then we've discovered a paradox that will be unsolvable, in which no real answer exists. If, on the other hand, we find that it doesn't lead to a contradiction, then we've discovered the truth.
Berta lying implies that Greta tells the truth. And then Greta telling the truth implies that Rosa is lying. Lastly, since Rosa said that both Greta and Berta are lying, and was herself lying according to our current results, at least once of them must be telling the truth. And, since we have labeled Greta as telling the truth, this works out.
So, the correct answer is that Greta is telling the truth and the other two are lying.
Let’s say Berta is telling the truth. It follows that Greta is lying. So, since Greta is lying, Rosa must be telling the truth. But if she is telling the truth, then both Berta and Greta are lying, which contradicts our previous idea that Berta was telling the truth. Given that all of this emerged just from the assumption that Berta was telling the truth, she must be lying. This is a Reductio ad Absurdum, a form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to contradiction.
Now, we just have to test the idea that Berta is lying. If Berta lying also leads to a contradiction, then we've discovered a paradox that will be unsolvable, in which no real answer exists. If, on the other hand, we find that it doesn't lead to a contradiction, then we've discovered the truth.
Berta lying implies that Greta tells the truth. And then Greta telling the truth implies that Rosa is lying. Lastly, since Rosa said that both Greta and Berta are lying, and was herself lying according to our current results, at least once of them must be telling the truth. And, since we have labeled Greta as telling the truth, this works out.
So, the correct answer is that Greta is telling the truth and the other two are lying.
Forwarded from Post Cards from Bogogobo (Specter - 1)
3 bedroom house on half an acre in Ironwood, MI for sale for $44k. Pay $5k up front and owe ~$300 a month for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance.
Appears to have had some incomplete renovations. The worst of it is in the kitchen, photos attached.
Appears to have had some incomplete renovations. The worst of it is in the kitchen, photos attached.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Photo
Ironwood is a small town of about 5,000 people. Ironwood has Lake Superior beaches, Black River Harbor and National Scenic By-way, Copper Peak ski jump, over a dozen nearby waterfalls, and more, and is but a short drive away from the Porcupine Mountains wilderness park, home to over 35,000 acres of old growth forest.