Juan Non-Volokh said that Joe Lieberman said something false on the weekend:
For example, Lieberman stated that the Bush Administration’s “Clear Skies” proposal to reform the Clean Air Act “actually would increase pollution” … He’s wrong … and should know better as a member of the Senate Environment Committee.First, the proposed “Clear Skies” legislation will reduce utility emissions of NOx and SOx by around 70 percent. As I have noted before, the worst that can be said of “Clear Skies” is that it will reduce utility emissions marginally less than they might be reduced under current law – I say “might” because current projections presume that the current regulatory process will stay on schedule, and this is unlikely. Either way, this is not a policy that “actually would increase pollution.”
My first thought was that there’s a meaning for ‘increase’ that Lieberman could be using here. On second thoughts, I’m not so sure, but the semantic question is pretty interesting I think, at least if you’re a semi-professional semanticist.
I’d have thought that the meaning of ‘increase’ would be in the ballpark of these two concepts, which I define stipulatively.
X increasest Q if X causes Q to be larger than it previously was. (The t subscript is to indicate that this is a temporal concept - what matters is that Q grows over time as a consequence of X.)X increasesc Q if X causes Q to be larger than it othewise would have been. (The c subscript is to indicate that this is a counterfactual concept - what matters is that Q is larger than it is in some relevant counterfactual situation.)
What is the relation between the meaning of ‘increase’ and my concepts increaset and increasec? If it means the disjunction of the two, or it is ambiguous between the two, then Lieberman is (arguably) off the hook, since Juan is conceding (at least for the sake of the argument) that the Clear Skies legislation increasesc pollution. Unfortunately, it isn’t obvious that either of these claims holds. Here are a couple of cases to test intuitions.
Merlin
We have here a pile of rocks. The pile is a little unstable, and some rocks are rolling down it, and if left untouched they will soon roll off the pile. Merlin casts a spell that halts one of the rocks, and moves it to a stable point. While this spell is being cast, some other rocks roll off the pile. Did Merlin increase the size of the rock pile? My intuition is that he did not, even though he did
increasec it.
RHAWP
The Red-Haired Australian Welfare Plan (RHAWP) calls for all red-haired Australians to be given a one-time payment of $100,000. Let’s imagine (contrary to fact) that we are in a scenario where the deficit is falling fast enough that even with the RHAWP in place, it will still fall next year. In that circumstance, would the RHAWP increase the deficit? It would increasec the deficit, but not increaset it. In this circumstance I’m a little more conflicted - I’m certainly more inclined to say that the RHAWP will increase the deficit than that Merlin increased the size of the rockpile. That’s good news for Lieberman, since arguably the Clear Skies legislation will have the same effect on pollution as the RHAWP has on the deficit.
Here’s my best guess as to what is going on. ‘Increase’ really does mean increaset, and Juan is right than what Lieberman said is false. But we are happy to use it of people who exacerbate, that is increasec, something we perceive to be a problem. To test this prediction, imagine what would happen if we thought the rock pile was getting in the way of something we want to do. For example, assume it covers up a mine shaft down which a young child is trapped. I think in that case I’d be more prepared to say that Merlin increased the rock pile. And I think (very tentatively) the best analysis of the case is that it’s a case where one can appropriately say something not true because it’s a useful way of communicating something that is true.
One final question. Juan says that
A “lie” is a deliberately false statement, typically made with an intent to deceive. Not just any false statement, or bit of spin, will do. Intentional deception is key.
Hmmm, is intent ‘typical’ or ‘key’? Anyway, we might wonder whether the following situation constitutes lying. X utters S (deliberately), S means that p, X knows p is false, but X thinks S means q, and X believes q is true. I’d say that’s not a lie. And in Lieberman’s defence, that might be what happened here. Before thinking through the cases, I thought ‘increase’ might mean increasec. I now think that’s wrong, but I think it’s a mistake a competent speaker could make. (I don’t think I was incompetent before I thought about the Merlin case.) Juan makes a point of not accusing Lieberman of lying, and I think that was correct given these considerations.
On a related note, increases in budget allotments relative to real, nominal and per person figures also gets the semantic name calling game going.
Unsurprisingly, this is a more serious analysis of the question than we ever got during the wholly-amateur-semantic disputes over when spending is “cut” during the 80s and 90s.
The mathematician in me is screaming: these are terms that don’t have obvious phrasings in English, but are intuitively easy.
If you have a thousand dollars in the bank, and I pay you a hundred dollars a month, than at the end of next year, your worth will be $2000.
If I give you fifty dollars a month instead of that hundred, the amount of money-you’ll-later-have is decreased-with-regard-to-what-it-should-be
and increased relative to now.
Politicians love this game. The “tax cut” sometimes just decreases the rate of increase. “Tax hikes” increases the rate of decrease. And, apparently, the “clear skies” iniative weakens-but-does-not-kill pollution.
Or rather, the “clear skies” iniative weakens-but-does-not-kill pollution control.
It is very, very worth noting that the sense of ‘increase’ that Leiberman used is the exact same sense in which many, many Republicans accuse the Democratic presidential candidates fo wanting to ‘increase’ taxes. That is, eliminate an otherwise-planned reduction.
I think that increase© and increase(t) are distinct concepts. If you are trying to be honest, and if the situation is such that confusion is possible, then you need to distinguish between them. Failure to do so is (IMHO) prima facia evidence on intent to lie.
I’m afraid that my intuitions and yours don’t accord at all. In your Merlin case I intuit that he did increase the size of the rock pile. In the analysis of lying, assuming that you are using “means” as a synonym for “implies,” then X is lying. It’s certainly the case that
(x -> p) & (p) -> x. Q is irrelevant; if X is a competant reasoner he knows this.
Well, I’ve never seen THAT before. Something in the software seems to have turned my use of “(” “c” “)” into the copyright symbol. They’re taking a little too good care of me.
More seriously, it also took the “not” symbols out of my formula, rendering it gibberish. I’ll try it again:
(x -> p) and (not p) -> not x
I agree that if you know a term is confusing you should be careful using it. But the situation I was assuming at the end wasn’t like that, it was where you simply have a false belief about the term’s meaning. Then you can quite easily, and quite non-maliciously, say things that are false.
I wonder if (common) semantic mistake is a defence to libel? One for the lawyers rather than for me I think.
Nice analysis.
It really depends on the context of Lieberman’s statement. He could certainly say without any question of lying or untruthfulness: “The Clean Air Act actually will increase the amount of pollution emitted over the next 10 years” (which takes out the temporal element).
If I was holding some such thought in my head, I could imagine saying that the act will increase pollution, both understanding what I’m saying and being truthful (although perhaps less than clear to listeners).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review