Here’s Wolf Blitzer’s current poll question
Do you think any of the Democratic candidates for president can beat George W. Bush?
I honestly don’t know what this means, so I figure I’d throw it over to the LazyWeb. It seems to me that if I answer ‘Yes’, I’m implying that I believe that any of the Democratic candidates for president can beat George W. Bush. And that’s false since I know Sharpton and Kucinich can’t. (At least if we ignore distant possible worlds they can’t.) But if I answer ‘No’ I’m implying that I don’t believe that any of the Democratic candidates for president can beat George W. Bush. And that’s false since I know Dean, Clark, Kerry etc can all handily whip Bush.
The problem is that ‘any’ behaves differently in positive and negative environments. Maybe this is just a presupposition failure, as in “Have you stopped voting Republican?” but I don’t remember seeing it discussed before.
A very lawyerly parsing of the question. Interesting.
I didn’t have any trouble interpreting the question as meaning “Is there some one of the candidates whom you believe…”. In fact your other interpretation still seems ludicrously inappropriate to me. Am I just dumb?
I think someone who works regularly with predicate logic would take the latter interpretation and vote yes on the basis of a single candidate’s (Dean’s, Clark’s, etc) ability to beat Bush. The proper way to state your former interpretation would be to replace “any” with “each”.
Nonetheless, the poll is poorly worded, since people read fast on the Internet and many will follow whatever interpretation pops into their mind first. Perhaps “Do you think there is a Democratic candidate for President who can beat Bush?” would be better, but even that sounds awkward.
Well the trouble with those bits of ordinary language that we have no trouble in interpreting the way we think they are meant - is that we may be wrong about the way they are meant. That’s one place that so much of the confusion in everyday discourse comes from, surely. So it’s always worth discussing it.
Just as it really is worth discussing what ‘is’ means. It’s not self-evident, and it’s not limited to only one possible meaning - the journalistic treatment of that whole issue was grossly unfair.
I had the same question about the “should Ralph Nader run” website, which asked something like,
(1) Would you think that Nader should not run in 2004 if any of the Democratic candidates win the nomination?
I honestly did not know whether “Yes” was supposed to mean
(2) There is some Democratic candidate such that, if s/he won the nomination, I would think Nader should not run
0r
(3) I think that Nader should not run if any of the Democrats wins the nomination.
I think, from the way the follow-up was phrased, they meant (2), which frustrated me because I wanted to answer “yes” to (3).
I also think Dick is almost right as to the intended interpretation here, because of the semantics: Few people think that Sharpton etc. could beat Bush.
Except: “Is there some one…” implies you have one in mind. It might be that I think that one of the candidates can beat Bush, but I don’t have an opinion about which one it is.
Ah, I like digamma’s proposed rephrasing. That makes it clear that it’s existential, but you can cogently answer, “Yes, but I don’t know which”; you can’t answer that if you’re asked “Is there a candidate that you think can beat Bush?”
For all the people who think I’m just being pedantic here, note that there’s a really plausible principle that looks like it is being violated here. The principle is that when someone asks “Do you think p”, answering affirmatively is to say “I think p”. But that simply can’t be the right answer here, because “I think any candidate can beat Bush” unambiguously means they all can beat Bush. So that’s an interesting counterexample to the simplest transformative account of question meaning.
Doesn’t that principle fall down on “ever”? If I ask, “Do you think that you will ever go to a baseball game again?” I can’t answer “I think I will ever go to a baseball game again.”
But the problem there could be that the answer is just ungrammatical. If the commenters’ consensus is right, we have a case where “I think P” is the wrong way to say “yes” even though “I think P” is grammatical.
…and I see you made that exact point at your other blog…. Teach me to publish without a proper literature survey.
I could happily beat George W. Bush. Give me a two by four and line him up. Or, I could work with a slipper if you bent him over the sofa.
The issue of “positive and negative environments” has been discussed pretty extensively… google “negative polarity items”.
Right, so the question could have been “Why on earth are questions NPI licencing?” But that would have probably been a little too geeky even for CT!
I used to know a little about NPIs, but I forgot most of it, so if anyone knows a snappy answer to that question, feel more than free to write it in :)
Geeks, gotta love em. I haven’t seen such an interesting and simultaneously pointless argument since my friend and I debated whether Newton’s definition of a derivative using limits was THE definition of a derivative (even though Newton’s work preceded Leibnitz’s work by years). I do wonder what motivates the issue since it seems clear to me that it means “Do you think that it is possible that any of the people running for president of the USA in 2004 as a Democrat can beat GWB in the November election?”. Is there a dialect of English where ‘any’ in this question is equivalent to ‘all’?
Well no, because nobody thinks it is possible that they can all beat him, because they can’t all run against him. But that’s presumably not what you have in mind.
(Not that it matters in any way, but they could all run against him - just not all as the candidates of a single party.)
Yes. I have stopped voting Republican.
I think it’s fairly clear that the best, common-sense interpretion of the question (if we are forced to choose) is the one where “any” is “some” (the Yes answer). But suppose we make the seemingly innocent replacement of “can” with “could” :
“Do you think any of the Democratic candidates for president could beat George W. Bush?”
Now I suddenly read it the other way, where “any” is “all” (and answer “No!” because Vermin Supreme hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell). And it doesn’t seem that it’s a difference in how near the possible worlds need to be or some kind of hidden subjunctive. I don’t know why though. Does anyone else read “could” the same way?
It’s a standard Double-Bind question. The wording is rigged so that either answer produces the desired result (or more acurately, a result that, with parsing produces the desired answer). It’s a flaw in the Aristotlian logic of either.or questions. A third or fourth or fifth option would be more acurate but acuracy is not the desired effect, only unscientific data that back up pre-ordained ideologies.
Notapipe—
I do hear a difference in nearness/closeness of possible worlds, or something like that.
“Howard Dean can beat Bush” = something like “Dean will win if he tries hard enough, doesn’t screw up, catches a reasonable number of breaks.”
“Dennis Kucinich could beat Bush” = something like “Anything can happen, maybe the month before the election the whole Bush Admin. will be indicted on Plame-related felonies.” It makes a difference if you emphasize “could,” I think.
I over-analyzed on the math section of the SATs, and answered the more complex question I found.
Yah, the only one I got wrong (on that side).
But this does scan as an “excluded middle”
Logically, it’s a poorly worded question, and you could certainly argue that a proper reading be that he is asking if all candidates can beat Bush. However, under this reading, if you answer no, you’d be answering that “not all candidates could beat Bush”, not that “no candidates can beat Bush”. The negation of “all” is “not all”, not “none”. So if you thought at least one candidate could not beat Bush, your answer would be “no”.
Of course, most of us choose to answer the question as we believe the questioner intended to ask, not the one they actually did.
When I was a child, and my wife asked me if I had cleaned my room, I suppose I could have answered yes, since I had at some point in my life cleaned my room. But of course I knew she meant “Have you cleaned your room since the time that I asked you to?” We tend to parse questions in context.
Interesting that Dell says:
“Not that it matters but they could all run against him - just not all as the candidates of a single party.”
He means, “All at the same time, but not All of the same party”
Not that it matters but they could all run against him in the same party.
I mean, “All of the same party, not All at the same time”.
But could they all run against him at the same time and of the same party? I think so. But if they were to do so, there would be some interesting backtracking (e.g. it would have to have been the case that the party system was much different than it now is…)
Tom - interesting childhood!
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