I think the statement is supposed to be clear despite the hedges because the statement itself is absolute, and we should assume that the info given is all info we have about Alan. So stating "XY is false" when we in fact know "XY could be true, we just don't know whether it is" is wrong.
If dogs are "usually wet", the statement "my neighbor's dog is not wet" is FALSE as long as we have no more information about your neighbor's dog.
Is that how it's meant? Struggling myself. But I think that would kind of make sense.
The statement "Alan is not blue" is not false because we know his color, it's false because we can't ascertain that he is NOT blue from the given information.
Similar category as "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" though, just with different hedges/probabilies? In that case, we'd lean "probably there is not such a cup", in this cryptic example, we are given clear indications equivalent to "teacups floating around Saturn have been observed before".
Yeah, I also can't make much sense of this.
If dogs are "usually wet", the statement "my neighbor's dog is not wet" is FALSE as long as we have no more information about your neighbor's dog.
Is that how it's meant? Struggling myself. But I think that would kind of make sense.
The statement "Alan is not blue" is not false because we know his color, it's false because we can't ascertain that he is NOT blue from the given information.
Similar category as "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" though, just with different hedges/probabilies? In that case, we'd lean "probably there is not such a cup", in this cryptic example, we are given clear indications equivalent to "teacups floating around Saturn have been observed before".
Yeah, I also can't make much sense of this.