The Gray Area of Life

[Bleid]

This thread's purpose is to both ask and challenge any readers to come up with an example of where something is not simply true and is not simply false, but is in the middle. I regularly hear claims that there is a gray area to some subject matters and things are not just black or white (true or false), but I've been underwhelmed by the attempts I've seen to demonstrate this case.

Classical logic tells us that this is not a possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) in more ways than one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence).

However, perhaps some things intuitively may appear this way and might actually turn out to be such cases?

Try to consider it genuinely and not let yourself be fooled by ostensible examples.
Some situations may seem like they have gray area, but actually fall into being a set of black and white situations upon further examination.

Some ostensible examples would be Schrödinger's Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat), Fallacies of Composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition), Fallacies of Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division) and Fuzzy Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic).

[Saint of Sinners]

This thread's purpose is to both ask and challenge any readers to come up with an example of where something is not simply true and is not simply false, but is in the middle. I regularly hear claims that there is a gray area to some subject matters and things are not just black or white (true or false), but I've been underwhelmed by the attempts I've seen to demonstrate this case.

Classical logic tells us that this is not a possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) in more ways than one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence).

However, perhaps some things intuitively may appear this way and might actually turn out to be such cases?

Try to consider it genuinely and not let yourself be fooled by ostensible examples.
Some situations may seem like they have gray area, but actually fall into being a set of black and white situations upon further examination.

Some ostensible examples would be Schrödinger's Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat), Fallacies of Composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition), Fallacies of Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division) and Fuzzy Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic).
Schrödinger's Cat was created by Schrödinger as a joke to illustrate the strangeness of quantum theory. The cat can be safely, for all intents and purposes, be considered dead.The situation Schrodinger describes only occurs at the quantum level. Schrödinger himself described the cat paradox as a ridiculous situation one can think up of using quantum logic, which I repeat, only takes effect on the quantum level.

Unfortunately most people never caught on XD It's still taught as fact today. I'm glad you know this bit of trivia too :P

[Atom]

Classical logic tells us that this is not a possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) in more ways than one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence).
That's math for ya :D

However, perhaps some things intuitively may appear this way and might actually turn out to be such cases?
I think these are two completely different things. One (black and white) being the human logic of reason. And the other (true or false) being the true, mathematical logic, which, imo, is just as human logic, has a lot of blanks in it. Which one are you talking about? The laws of physics or the simple earthly matters like "all men are assholes?"

[Bleid]

Schrödinger's Cat was created by Schrödinger as a joke to illustrate the strangeness of quantum theory. The cat can be safely, for all intents and purposes, be considered dead. The situation Schrodinger describes only occurs at the quantum level. Schrödinger himself described the cat paradox as a ridiculous situation one can think up of using quantum logic, which I repeat, only takes effect on the quantum level.

Unfortunately most people never caught on XD It's still taught as fact today. I'm glad you know this bit of trivia too :P

When I saw the first words in your message being "Schrödinger's Cat" I thought I was in for a several page back-and-forth dissertation, but then I was delighted to see the rest of your post indicated you actually have done adequate research into the particular details. : )

That's math for ya :D

I think these are two completely different things. One (black and white) being the human logic of reason. And the other (true or false) being the true, mathematical logic, which, imo, is just as human logic, has a lot of blanks in it.

They're different in their scopes. "Human" Philosophical Logic is the superset of Mathematical Logic.

Where "human" logic is the the study of reasoning, mathematical logic is the study of reasoning with quantities. All of standard logic trickles down into mathematical logic, and then mathematical logic continues on from there into numbers over propositions.

Which one are you talking about? The laws of physics or the simple earthly matters like "all men are assholes?"

Both!

[Atom]

Both!
I suppose it is also important if it is a situation or a fact that is being argued. Because if it is a statement, something like "does the universe have an end?" can be proved or disproved to be 100% true or false. If this is a situation, like "Ted Bundy did nothing wrong", then there are several different points of view and I believe even mathematically you can't max it out to a 100%, black or white. That would imply that every conflict can be solved with some math. And maybe it can be, but what would be the criteria then?

I'll try to use this silly example that I gave as... An example.
So Ted Bundy did nothing wrong. What is the criteria? He killed many people so he is a 100% bad man. But he also took care of his family and that means he had good impact on some other people. He was a guinea pig for many psychologists and psychiatrists after the events and by that he contributed to a research of psychopathy, being a good example of. Maybe this doesn't make him a better person but this is not a 100% case already, imo.

Maybe you have an example that you think isn't gray, contradictory to other people?

[Bleid]

I suppose it is also important if it is a situation or a fact that is being argued. Because if it is a statement, something like "does the universe have an end?" can be proved or disproved to be 100% true or false. If this is a situation, like "Ted Bundy did nothing wrong", then there are several different points of view and I believe even mathematically you can't max it out to a 100%, black or white. That would imply that every conflict can be solved with some math. And maybe it can be, but what would be the criteria then?

I'll try to use this silly example that I gave as... An example.
So Ted Bundy did nothing wrong. What is the criteria? He killed many people so he is a 100% bad man. But he also took care of his family and that means he had good impact on some other people. He was a guinea pig for many psychologists and psychiatrists after the events and by that he contributed to a research of psychopathy, being a good example of. Maybe this doesn't make him a better person but this is not a 100% case already, imo.

Maybe you have an example that you think isn't gray, contradictory to other people?

You've answered yourself with this one. This is an example of what I was referring to in my original post. This can be broken down into a set of black and white situations.

"several different view points" - Precisely. Several different ones, but within each one, they are precisely one way.

That is, let's say it's like such:

Viewpoint A) I think he's a bad man because (unimportant reason).
Viewpoint B) I think he's ok because (unimportant reason).
Viewpoint C) (unimportant view) because (unimportant reason).

This is not a case of gray, because in each case, it is completely defined as to what the view is, whether it is that he is good, or he is not.

There is not somehow an overarching, meta-view that collects all of these possible sub-views together into one, and so there is no gray, here. Each individual view is well-defined in a particular direction.

Using your examples:

Viewpoint A) He murdered people ---> Bad.
Viewpoint B) Beneficial to psychologists ---> Good.
Viewpoint C) Took care of his family ---> Good.

In none of those do we get to a mixture of both good and bad. This is an example of

Some situations may seem like they have gray area, but actually fall into being a set of black and white situations upon further examination.

[Atom]

Viewpoint A) He murdered people ---> Bad.
Viewpoint B) Beneficial to psychologists ---> Good.
Viewpoint C) Took care of his family ---> Good.
Now I understand what you mean.
Well, then I agree with you, I thought you were talking about a situation in general. I suppose every gray then can be nitpicked into a lot of black and white little sub-points, if you try hard enough. A lot of them still is a matter of perspective, I believe. For example, he killed a lot of people, but it was beneficial to psychologists. Some would say that those lives worth more than the research, others would say otherwise. For me this would make this sub-point gray, even though it can be nitpicked into 2 more sub-sub-points.

I understand you want to find something something that is originally gray and can't be further nitpicked? Yes, it's hard to think of one right away. I'll come back to you when/if I find one :)

[Bleid]

Now I understand what you mean.
Well, then I agree with you, I thought you were talking about a situation in general. I suppose every gray then can be nitpicked into a lot of black and white little sub-points, if you try hard enough. A lot of them still is a matter of perspective, I believe. For example, he killed a lot of people, but it was beneficial to psychologists. Some would say that those lives worth more than the research, others would say otherwise. For me this would make this sub-point gray, even though it can be nitpicked into 2 more sub-sub-points.

I understand you want to find something something that is originally gray and can't be further nitpicked? Yes, it's hard to think of one right away. I'll come back to you when/if I find one :)


Sounds good!

[Atom]

Sounds good!
This'll sound stupid, but I'd say that our universe is gray. It just exists - it just is what it is. But our universe is the product of entropy (bad, i.e. black), so my argument is internally flawed :D

[Microcosm]

The short answer, I suppose, would be the things we don't know. If all knowledge is possible to know, then from our perspective, the only grey area would be the things we don't know or the things that are unknowable, like the existence of God and other metaphysical questions.