"in a certain community, ALL politicians lie while all non-politicians tell the truth. An a stranger then goes into the community and asks the first native that he encounters if he is a politician or not. The 1st native answers. Then a 2nd native says that the 1st native denied his being a politician. Then a 3rd native says that the 1st native is a politician.
What can you conclude from the premises? How many politicians are there from the 3 natives?"
that was the question from the philosophy exam that i just had. What do you think is the answer?
2006-10-01 21:07:49 · 4 answers · asked by abstemious_entity 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Trivia
that's more or less the question. "How many politicians are there from the 3 natives?" i kept on analyzing it...and i always came up with a PROBABILITY not a CERTAINTY. It was either 1 OR 2 POLITICIANS.
Premise:
1) All politicians lie.
2) All non-politicians tell the truth.
Claims:
1) First native claims to be a non-politician.
2) Second native claims 1st native is a politician.
3) Third native claims 1st native is a politician.
Two if the 1st native was telling the truth (ie that he is not a politician). OR 1 if the 1st native is lying and the other 2 natives were telling the truth.
one can't really arrive at a certain number right? since it is not stated in the premise how many politicians or non-politicians there are in the population. Or can you really arrive at a definite number instead of a 1 or 2 answer?
2006-10-01 21:23:01 · update #1
@ echo c: LOL. i dont know! but you are talking about ethics. the exam was talking about logic. inductive reasoning to be exact. your answer is funny though and has a point to it...with regards to the situation of only being a mathematical concept and having no reality bearing....my reply would be...that's where science starts. i wonder what my professor would have thought if i gave your answer. LOL.
2006-10-01 21:43:44 · update #2
My answer would be:
The philosophical problem with such questions is the assumed generalisation that ALL people of one class (e.g. politicians) ALWAYS do the same thing (e.g. lie) and ALL not of that class do the opposite.
Who is always able to lie all the time? It is an absurdity.
A: Do you want coffee? B: "No"
B: Where's my coffee? A: You just said "no"
etc.
I think a lie is heinous, but we need to discuss it in this context.
To lie is sometimes a social skill - e.g. does my bum look big in this? - and to withhold truth can also be an indirect lie, so we all may have to lie on occasion, unless we are to be socially inept.
Where is the subtlety if we either all lie or all don't lie. It's illogical!
What person is always a politician?
Are they born one? What if they change career - do they suddenly have to swap from being a liar to never lie? Again, it doesn't make sense.
Thus, the whole question is based on generalisations that are no more than mathematical concepts and have no real world bearing.
Did I flunk the exam, yet?
2006-10-01 21:24:28 · answer #1 · answered by echo c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question makes no sense at all. Did you type it exactly how it was on your test?
It is a typical question though.
2 men, 1 says he is telling the truth, the other says he is lying. What question do you ask who to determin which is telling the truth?
2006-10-01 21:10:32 · answer #2 · answered by iswd1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
one
2006-10-01 21:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by yacheckoo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If their mouthes are moving, you know they are lying....
2006-10-01 21:10:34 · answer #4 · answered by mobileminiatures 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋