Hi All;) .. Philosophically speaking ---> See details?

Question

---> ...if a question itself assumed a falsehood to be valid, could the question itself receive a direct and valid answer?;)
>>>>>>
Thanks, for answering in advance! ;D

Answer 1

if a question states the invalidity of something, then what it expresses is valid or holds true... then it can be answered truthfully too. to every question given, an assumption is asked. whatever it's response may hold, it is valid to the respondents view, not necessarily to the questionnaire's viewpoint. but if the questionnaire's query invokes a falsehood in his statement, the proof of it's falsehood would then be justified by the respondent with validity and exactness, thereby a true valid answer...

catch my drift?

Answer 2

It can receive a direct answer since the falsehood would've been found to be somewhat true in a sense, but as far as validity is concerned that would depend on the information at the time on the subject of the question pertained to the valid answers and it interdicts itself and becomes episodic.

Answer 3

I've seen cases where people were told a lie and because they believed it to be true, they actually made it happen. It wasn't supposed to happen, but because the person believed it, they made it into a reality.

The same thing could be said with inventions.

If you think about it, all things technically start off as falsehoods. When you set a date for an event, it's technically a falsehood. It isn't until that date arrives and the event comes to pass that it becomes a true statement.

When people are betting on the Lottery, they're technically betting with Falsehoods. When the Lottery actually pulls out the numbers, whomever guessed them correctly had a Falsehood transform into a True Statement.

Answer 4

Yes. Here's one example:

Q: Since the moon is made of cheese, do you prefer to eat it with red wine or white?
A: Neither. (Optional additional information: ...because the moon is not actually made of cheese.)

Here's one more:

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
A: No. (Optional additional information: ...because I never started.)

The first question assumes that the moon is made of cheese, then proceeds to offer only two "possible" options. The correct answer is "neither", and optionally you may wish to clarify the answer by explaining that the cheesemoon premise is false.

The second question assumes that you had earlier been beating your wife, then asks whether you have stopped doing so. The correct answer is "no", because you can't stop doing something that you never started doing. Again, you would most likely wish to clarify your answer, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, by pointing out the erroneous premise.

In both of these questions, a "falsehood" is assumed, and you are able to provide an honest and direct "answer". The answer on it's own may be confusing however, which is why you probably would include additional information.

Answer 5

Yes. 1) Just because the question is based on something false, does not mean that the answer could not correct that falsehood while adressing the question. 2) The laws of reason are inefficient in describing truth - so something seen as a falsehood through reason may actually be true but it may be unattainable through the medium of rationality.

Answer 6

whilst it is interior the character of evil to be secret, the prohibition against uttering falsehoods isn't absolute. maximum respondents have puzzled 2 comparable issues in this question. there's a great distinction between some element's being ethical and its being morally permissible. A lie constantly runs afoul of the ethical thought to talk the certainty. As such no lie is ethical. in spite of the shown fact that, there are situations wherein different ethical responsibilities outweigh the activity to be honest. the hardship-loose occasion of it is hiding a Jewish kinfolk from the Nazis. while the SS knocks on your door and asks once you're hiding every physique, you're morally approved to lie using fact your accountability to maintain life and uphold justice take priority in this occasion. The lie itself is immoral, yet is morally permissible. so which you're able to be sparkling on what you recommend via 'ok'. in case you recommend "Is it ever ethical to lie" then the respond isn't any. in case you recommend "Is it ever morally permissible to lie" then the respond is definite.

Answer 7

Only the questioner can assume, but hopefully the answerer will validate the correct question and answer that truthfully to the best of his/her ability.

...jj

Answer 8

Its never safe to assume any thing for when we assume it makes an *** out of you and me

***-u-me

But to your point. The answer to a question is only as direct, valid or invalid as the person hearing it wishes for it to be.
Its almost like proving something. proving something in itself is a double negative because the proof of the situation may be proof to one and not proof to the other.
Both things my statement and your questions are concepts of perception.
Penny Babson'
http://www.impressionsbypenny.com
http://www.pennyclarkbabson.net

Answer 9

Yup, but the answer would be two-fold; first addressing the invalid points and then providing a correct answer to that

Answer 10

Yes, but the answer must either be contradictory or itself invalid.