The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

Someone asked me recently why I consider myself an atheist but don't have any abiding interest in science or mathematics. The only answer I could give them was quoting an excerpt from Werner Herzog's movie The Enigma of Kasper Hauser.

(I think a lot of 'middle ground' atheists would identify strongly with the idiot savant at the centre of this film)

After Kasper has been taken under the wing of kindly philanthropist and has learnt to speak and read, a pompous professor turns up at the house to test his lateral thinking and command of logical reasoning.

"In this village live people who tell only the truth," says the Prof, moving a sugar pot across the table. "Here is another village: the people who live here only tell lies."

He moves a tea cup to the other side of the table. "Two paths run from these villages to where you are standing, and you are at the crossroads. A man comes along and you want to know which village he comes from: the truthful village or the village of liars. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?"

The maid, sitting between the two men, insists the problem is too difficult for Kasper, who remains silent. After some more pontificating, the professor gives the answer:

"If you came from the other village, would you answer no if I were to ask you whether you came from the liar's village? By means of a double negative, the liar is forced to tell the truth…
That's what I call logic via argument to truth," he concludes, with a flourish.

"Well I know another question," pipes up Kasper, emphasising each word as if it is an announcement all of its own.

The professor indignantly denies that another question exists.

"I would ask the man if he was a tree frog," Kasper continues simply.
"The man from the village of truth would say, 'No, I'm not a tree frog,' because he tells the truth.
The man from the liars' village would say,
'I am a tree frog,' because they would lie. That's how I would know which village he was from."

Having been raised - if you can even call it that - outside society, Kasper never fully grasps the rules (His solution arrives at the correct answer, but is hopelessly flawed by the conventional wisdom of logical deduction) although this has also liberated him from the rigid thought structures everyone is expected to adopt. With or without his new language and education, he is principally drawn to beauty but requires no conception of the 'divine' or the 'immortal' to justify the delight and wonder this affords him.

Sorry if this is considered off-topic, but such a quaint little story has had a profound impact on how I view the world and accept my limitations.


Edited by ExittheLemming - December 09 2009 at 03:31

Dean wrote: ^ Herzog engineered the question so that Kasper's answer would reveil an alternative correct answer - the classical version of the two paths (or doors) riddle cannot be solved using Kasper's solution. However, I do (sort of) agree with the point you are making.

Is it the 'double negative' proffered by the prof that is forbidden in the classical solution ?

Can this problem be solved, (obeying the conventions of logic), with just one question asked of the stranger ?

Dean wrote:   The Classic version would be:   "Two paths run from these villages to a crossroads where a man from one of the villages is standing. You come along and want to know which path to take to the truthful village. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?" to which the correct question would be - "if you came from the other village which path would you say is the path to the truthful village?" - and you would then know that the other path was the correct one.

I think that this is actually two questions in one:
1. Do you come from the other village?
2. If so, which path would you say is the path to the truthful village?

I understand the logic of why the question should work, but it assumes that the person would answer the second question based on a truthful answer to the first, independently of which village he's from. The first question, separated like this, is also a bit of a problem ... no matter what he answers, we could only deduce that he comes from his own village. So ultimately, the combined question is cheating in that it assumes that the person would answer it based on a truthful answering of the "if" part.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 10 2009 at 01:55

^ Oh dear, it looks like I've been arguing with people from each camp  ...  ...

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote:   The Classic version would be:   "Two paths run from these villages to a crossroads where a man from one of the villages is standing. You come along and want to know which path to take to the truthful village. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?" to which the correct question would be - "if you came from the other village which path would you say is the path to the truthful village?" - and you would then know that the other path was the correct one.   I think that this is actually two questions in one: 1. Do you come from the other village? 2. If so, which path would you say is the path to the truthful village? I understand the logic of why the question should work, but it assumes that the person would answer the second question based on a truthful answer to the first, independently of which village he's from. The first question, separated like this, is also a bit of a problem ... no matter what he answers, we could only deduce that he comes from his own village. So ultimately, the combined question is cheating in that it assumes that the person would answer it based on a truthful answering of the "if" part. You are correct - in rewording the classic case to fit Herzog's script I screwed it up too.     Two paths run from these villages to a crossroads where a man from each of the villages is standing. You come along and want to know which path to take to the truthful village. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?" "Which path would the other man say is the path to the truthful village?"   ...is a single question that yields the false answer regardless of who answered it,

Yes I think I follow that, thanks for the solution Dean. Sorry to be Mr Picky here...but what if the two men did not know which village the other originated from or they were both from the same village ? If only one villager was present, wouldn't Kasper's solution be a compromise one ?

ExittheLemming wrote: Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote:   The Classic version would be:   "Two paths run from these villages to a crossroads where a man from one of the villages is standing. You come along and want to know which path to take to the truthful village. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?" to which the correct question would be - "if you came from the other village which path would you say is the path to the truthful village?" - and you would then know that the other path was the correct one.   I think that this is actually two questions in one: 1. Do you come from the other village? 2. If so, which path would you say is the path to the truthful village? I understand the logic of why the question should work, but it assumes that the person would answer the second question based on a truthful answer to the first, independently of which village he's from. The first question, separated like this, is also a bit of a problem ... no matter what he answers, we could only deduce that he comes from his own village. So ultimately, the combined question is cheating in that it assumes that the person would answer it based on a truthful answering of the "if" part. You are correct - in rewording the classic case to fit Herzog's script I screwed it up too.     Two paths run from these villages to a crossroads where a man from each of the villages is standing. You come along and want to know which path to take to the truthful village. Now, in order to solve this problem logically, there is only one question you can ask. What is that question?" "Which path would the other man say is the path to the truthful village?"   ...is a single question that yields the false answer regardless of who answered it, Yes I think I follow that, thanks for the solution Dean. Sorry to be Mr Picky here...but what if the two men did not know which village the other originated from or they were both from the same village ? If only one villager was present, wouldn't Kasper's solution be a compromise one ?

You're with the murkies ... leaning towards the brights, but still refusing to let go of the supernatural. In my opinion, of course. :-)

The T wrote: Nobody has created yet the only poll that matters and that can solve this issue: Jay vs Mike; or Robert vs Mike; or Ivan vs Mike; or Jampa vs Mike; or Dean vs Mike; or Dean vs Jay; or Dean vs Jampa; or Jampa vs Jampa; or The T vs Slartibartfast (?!)... Let's combine those and let's create the poll that'll kill them all! And we'll prove, with evidence worthy of Dawkins, that no matter what is the truth, religion only creates antagonism.    Really, is like the politics of the absurd. Why can't we all just be happy in doubt?

Edited by jampa17 - December 10 2009 at 08:58

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^^ your panentheistic position simply boils down to an atheistic position as far as practical matters in our world are concerned ... yet you seem to insist that it's a huge difference, or that for some reason you don't want to be thrown in a bag with all the other atheists. Where's the difference?

Edited by Negoba - December 10 2009 at 09:54