That’s another class of example I think, that falls into a “majority” type rule, similar to a generalisation.
It’s like when people say “People from country X drink a lot” despite many there not drinking much.
Describing the cup as it appears from a distance is reasonable in most situations but not 100% accurate and in court you’d be wise to mention the black writing.
The Bob/Cheryl example is interesting in a different way, because 50% of the information is ignored in the answer.
Yeah, I agree. Which is why “whole truth” is very much a term or art and a bad thing for a lawyer to ask someone is a legal setting. Its not factual, and it doesn’t achieve anything. The correct answer to the lawyers question is “it depends”, which is thoroughly useless.
“The the truth,
Don’t make false statements.
the whole truth,
Don’t lie by omission.
and nothing but the truth”.
The truth accompanied by a bunch of lies is a lie.
That said I don’t really get what the lawyer was doing. What’s his play if Musk’s response to “What does it mean to you” is lol idk bro, you’re the lawyer? With the ‘whole truth’ thing it seems like he wants Musk to commit to not lying by omission, but why he couldn’t just say that, I dunno.
It strikes me as simply an interview technique, designed to put someone off balance before asking them the questions you actually care about. This is something you expect an aggressive cop to do with a suspect which is why it seems odd it the context.
I don’t think it’s generally the case that omitting material facts is perjury. The oath is a bit misleading.
EDIT: The syllabus of Bronston:
Federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, does not reach a witness’ answer that is literally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably “false by negative implication.”
You just made me feel terrible about myself.
Yeah that’s probably the wrong post, I have no expertise, you want one of the law bros I think.
Why? It’s an extreme exaggeration (somewhat understandable) based on an emotional event.
I don’t feel terrible about myself anymore.
The whole truth is the universe and all that ever was imo. Lame question.
Musk is a clown, but that doesn’t mean we have to stan for (shudder) lawyers around here.
You can argue definitions until you get down to it all being circular. Asking someone who is testifying to define “truth” for you is moronic.
I feel like a ton of expert witness testimony falls squarely into this intent to deceive category.
Of course, pretty much all I know is based on watching legal-themed TV shows.
I feel like this is true based on the one person I know who has given a lot of expert testimony.
re your edit — I was already reading that. Seems like it’s mostly about how so much of Philosophy was fuzzy and I’m with them on that. Everything is ultimately somewhat fuzzy though imo.
eta: I’m really down with “Logical positivists especially opposed Martin Heidegger’s obscure metaphysics, the epitome of what logical positivism rejected.” Hate Heidegger and he’s probably the philosopher I’ve heard the most about because a couple of my close friends in college were endlessly reading and talking about him - on the surface with some irony, but getting way too into it.
Heidegger is generally (though not universally) regarded as bullshit among philosopers. Since the 60s I’d say there’s much more of a turn toward “pragmatism”, where truth is associated more with usefulness or at least agreement among rational agents.
Logical positivism is useful and instructive and still influential, but its a bit like Ayn Rand vs Heidegger’s Marx, ie an overly conservative reaction to a flawed theory. (Note: This gives Rand way too much credit. Marx was a genius, if wrong. Rand was a fraud.)
https://twitter.com/CanPanicNow/status/1312111746497216512
Salmon-shorts Chad up to his old antics. That guy man.
What happened? Did no-one make a new Trump thread?