Sharky, a leader of the underworld, was killed by one of his own band of four henchmen. Detective Sharp interviewed the men and determined that all were lying except one. He deduced who killed Sharky on the basis of the following statements:
a. Socko: Lefty killed Sharky.
b. Fats: Muscles didn't kill Sharky
c. Lefty: Muscles was shooting craps with Socko when Sharky was knocked off.
d. Muscles: Lefty didn't kill Sharky.
Who did kill Sharky?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 5:38 pm ad1c9bdddf
Suppose Socko is telling the truth. This means that Fats, Lefty and Muscles are lying.
Since Socko is telling the truth, Lefty killed Sharky.
But we assumed that Fats was lying, therefore Muscles killed Sharky.
Hence we get a contradiction. Therefore Socko was not telling the truth and he was lying. Therefore we conclude that Lefty did not kill Sharky.
Now suppose that Fats is telling the truth and Socko, ...
Reason and logic
The term Conventional knowledge or epistemology to describe all theories about knowledge from ancient times to today, except for the ancient sophists and today's postmodernists. For instance, Conventional epistemology accepts logic or pure reason, as the last word on any intelligent discussion, while postmodernists reject it as decisive (as they reject anything else as decisive or "absolutely reliable"). The Conventional epistemology of Rationalism is the first dq here:
Question: Does business or organizational world rely absolutely on reason and logic? What would happen, for instance, if you gave opposite statements, opposite instructions, or opposite assessments? Give example(s), either true or typical. Is it possible to rely and insist on being logical and consistent, while at the same time not being dogmatic in the ways that postmodernists criticize?View Full Posting Details