In response to my post on this topic, "Earl Cox" <earldcox1@home.com> wrote:> Sigh. We are still missing the core epistemological difference > between fuzzy logic and probability. > Time to move on.
Do you believe, then, that S.F. Thomas is incorrect to call degree of membership by the name "semantic likelihood"? If not, then why don't the usual rules which apply to likelihoods in general also apply to semantic likelihood? As to epistemological differences, I do comprehend that degree of membership is something different from probability. However, if S.F. Thomas is correct to say that membership is a likelihood, then we already have the rules, derived from laws of probability, for manipulating memberships. As I mentioned before, I am indeed interested in expressing the uncertainty inherent in the use of natural language; I am just not seeing why this requires a new reasoning calculus. Regards, Robert Dodier -- "Nature exists once only." -- Ernst Mach