The answers JLS gives are unsatisfactory. I suggest a better answer, deploying 'vel', is as follows. 'p vel non-p' must always be true - there is no state of affairs that can falsify 'p vel non-p' in the sense where a statement can be falsified because it rules out a logically possible state of affairs and should that state of affairs obtain then the statement is false. [I.e. the sense of falsifiable is here not restricted to 'falsifiable by obervation'.] Where any proposition 'p' is stated together with "Or not", where "Or not" represents the negation of 'p', then this conjunction is the same as 'p vel non-p': because such a conjunction fails to rule out any possible state of affairs, it is compatible with any possible state of affairs. So it must, logically, be correct that 'p vel non-p' - but this correctness comes at a high price. By failing to assert anything that is incompatible with any possible state of affairs, the conjunction fails to assert anything of interest about any possible state of affairs.It is of as little interest as a tautology, the correctness of which comes at a similarly high price. Falsificationistically yours, Donal From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 11:06 Subject: [lit-ideas] Or Not In a message dated 4/20/2013 8:55:53 P.M. UTC-02, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: If one adds "or not" as a qualifier to everything, does that mean we are right about everything or not? Or does it just mean that by claiming both an assertion and its negation we are not taking the risk of being wrong about anything we claim, or not? We have discussed this before. The locus classicus, as R. D. Fenton, a Latin teacher, calls it, is, no doubt, Alice in Wonderland: THE WHITE KNIGHT (to Alice): You look sad. Let me sing you a song to comfort you. ALICE: Is it too long? THE WHITE KNIGHT: It _is_ long. But very _very_ beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it -- either it brings the tears into their eyes, or ALICE: Or? ("Alice interrupted, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.") THE WHITE KNIGHT: Or not. ---- McEvoy's analysis: THESIS 1: McEvoy's question: "If one adds "or not" as a qualifier to everything, does that mean we are right about everything or not?" Answer (One Of Many): Or not, I guess. THESIS 2: McEvoy's question: "Or [rather] does it just mean that by claiming both an assertion and its negation we are not taking the risk of being wrong about anything we claim, or not? Answer (One of Many): Again, or not, I guess. ----- The best way to deal with this is symbolically. I will introduce "v" as the disjunction operator and refer to "The Genealogy of Disjunction", a book -- or rather, the title of a book. The Latins used "vel" as "or". The particle survives in Italian, in some place names. On the other hand, the Latins also used "aut". In English, "or" is short of "other", which complicates the logical form. Strictly, it means "second". Aristotle saw this and talks of a _third_ man as an impossibility (in his view). ---- And so on. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html