NO Leaving something out could be the result of not knowing all or the complete story.
Unless you were to express this mathematically...perhaps an example would help clarify your position? As you put it, however, the act of omission/withholding information for the purpose of rendering a statement that is founded on information/knowledge that one feels is not certainly correct or otherwise inconclusive, viz., essentially the one who answers does not wish to give a statement that has, in his opinion, a weak foundation, is not necessarily lying - if, in the particular scenario, the proponent aims to extract a statement/answer and the deponent withholds from answering due to the fact that he truly cannot give testimony to something bearing great weight [ex., 'who killed Mrs. Whatsit?' - 'umm.. I don't know'] because he is unsure. He might be almost certain but the slightest nuance of doubt hinders him from rendering a statement...
Is this lying? Returning to the murder scenario of Mrs. Whatsit....the deponent might be sure that his best friend killed the victim, however he did not see it with his own eyes and suspects that his friend is obviously the killer due to whatever circumstances...
If asked 'did your best friend kill Mrs. Whatsit?', the deponent is NOT lying by answering 'NO'
If asked 'do you suspect that your best friend killed Mrs. Whatsit?', and the propounding entity is not blocked from proceeding further in obtaining an answer, [I am not a lawyer by the way...just my little brain writhing in whatifs] does the proponent lie if he says 'NO'? If he knows he suspects it, and answers that he does not suspect it, he is lying. However, does he truly suspect it or is he confused and unclear, due to whatever circumstances, about his suspicion to begin with? In this case answering 'YES' would also be a lie if the deponent suddenly realized he might be caught up in the tumult of the entire affair and is unsure of his stance.
Give an example....
What you posit is WAY too vague. I'm thinking courtroom scenario and all the goes with it. You might be thinking of something else. Your statement is neither correct nor incorrect since it is unclear what you posit. Set it down fully and heavily or else it makes no sense and is either redundant or something that is so transparent and vague, it can have no adjective ascribed to it. [/QUOTE]
As far as im concerned no individual knows ALL about ANY particular subject, object, or orb. Just as I don't know the completeness possibilities of this post.
Within this nightmare you describe...I understand , I think what you are talking about.
However, you started out with declaring that you hold the following. How can you have a position of any sort regarding any topic including the very notion of 'inability for anyone to be certain about anything', if in your praise of the rule of uncertainty, nothing is certain....that is a statement. You wrote it. Why did you write it if there is no point to writing anything because nothing is certain. What do you intend to say/imply/ask/....etc.
اسکندر بزرگ -
