I have a question about the Truth-Conditions Test: How can the first example ("Mary visited the bank") be ansered truthfully with yes and no while the second example ("Did Mary adopt a child") cannot? In the first example you stat that Mary either visited the bank or not and therefore both way are possible but that also appliel for the second example in my opinion: Mary either adopted a child or not. In the Virtual Session the example for abiguity is a different one, There you ask if someone bought a light cloak; where "light" can refer to the color or the weight. This makes perfect sense but in the video you refer to bank as the money institute in both cases. Is that just a mistake in the video or didn't I get the point of the Truth-Conditions Test?
Think of it this way: You ask me "Did Mary go to the bank?" When you ask me this question you're thinking of a money institution. But five minutes ago we were talking about how her husband loves fishing. So when you ask this question I think you mean a river edge. Mary did not go to the river edge, so I answer "No". When you find out later that she did go to the bank and you talk to me about it, I tell you "Oh, but I thought you meant the river bank". And you say, "Oh OK I get it, no problem." I was being truthful, the problem was that the question was *ambiguous.* It had to mean one of two different things. *The correct answer was yes only if I interpreted the word "bank" correctly.* You ask me "Did Mary adopt a child?" You know that she adopted a boy. But somehow I get Mary confused with someone else who adopted a girl. I answer "No". When you find out later that she did adopt a child (who was a boy) and you talk to me about it, I tell you, "Oh, but at the time I thought she adopted a girl not a boy." And you say "Whaa??" Whether it was a boy or a girl, I still knew that she adopted a child, so it was not truthful for me to answer "no". The question was *vague* not ambiguous. It had a general meaning, the details were not important. *The correct answer was yes no matter if it was a boy or girl.*
@@joelthomastr This has nothing to do with confusing Mary. It is not about determining Mary's ambiguity or vagueness. This test can be confusing, and I'm still not entirely convinced I get it right. The video also does not explain it well. Firstly, the reality does not change. So, as a given, Mary went to the bank (financial institution) but not the river bank, and she adopted a boy but not a girl. Secondly, someone asks you these two questions: Did Mary go to the bank, and did Mary adopt a child? Then, to the first question you can say both yes and no truthfully, depending on whether you think bank refers to the financial institution or the river bank. But, to the second question you could not answer both yes and no truthfully. Although here, you do not assume it means either boy or girl, otherwise this test would not work (if I understand it correctly). The difference seems to be that you could not confuse child to mean one, while the other is true. It would not make sense to answer that question with no, when she did adopt a child, regardless of gender.
@@joelthomastr maybe I am gonna sound a little to logical and a little bit technical or some what like a over thinker but in the question about Mary adopting a child why are you thinking of other people and what the sex of the child is and not just what is asked... for the answer not to be able to identify as a yes and no answer ..
