Fuzzy Logic

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Mon, 25 May 1998 16:54:20 -0400

At 03:50 PM 5/25/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>> Multivalent ("Fuzzy") logic does not conflict with absolute truth. It
>> merely breaks it down into cheweable bites instead of forcing you to
>> swallow a whole apple or none at all.
>Too true. So long as we're aware that the truth itself is not fuzzy, but
>we are simply using fuzzy logic as a tool to better explain or
>conceptualize the truth.
>> Believe it or not, there ARE times when one is neither completely right,
>> nor completely wrong.
>Perhaps, but not because reality itself is partially objective, but
>because the statement one is making contains some fraction of true
>information and some fraction of false information.

IAN: Exactly. After writing about fuzzy logic
in a report, I got hostile reactions from
some folks that saw fuzzy logic as an attack
on the concept of truth. The entirety of that
counter against fuzzy stemmed from a failure to
understand that "fuzzy truth" is a measure of the
degree that a given word X maps onto the physical
thing Y that X is purported to describe. The word
"rain" maps on to a "misty drizzle" to a degree
that's not 100% or 0% true or false, but the
physical event described is always 100% true.

In that way, fuzzy logic does not devalue physical
truth, but rather the idea that a given word is 100%
or 0% true. I wrote this short essay in responce to the
reactions I got: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/fuzzy.htm

VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Max Plank - Nobel physicist

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand