I’ve always felt basically the same about trust. It’s nice to see that I’m not the only one.
I’d add/emphasize that trust is really a 2-place word. It doesn’t really make sense to say “I trust Alice”. Instead, it’d make sense to say “I trust Alice to do X” or “I trust Alice’s belief about X” or “I expect Alice’s prediction about X to be true”. Ie. instead of trust(person), it’s trust(person, thing).
(And of course, as mentioned in the post, it isn’t binary either. The output of the function is a probability. A number between zero and one. Not a boolean.)
I’ve always felt basically the same about trust. It’s nice to see that I’m not the only one.
I’d add/emphasize that trust is really a 2-place word. It doesn’t really make sense to say “I trust Alice”. Instead, it’d make sense to say “I trust Alice to do X” or “I trust Alice’s belief about X” or “I expect Alice’s prediction about X to be true”. Ie. instead of
trust(person), it’strust(person, thing).(And of course, as mentioned in the post, it isn’t binary either. The output of the function is a probability. A number between zero and one. Not a boolean.)
That would make it a 3-place word (“I trust” is 1-place, “I trust Alice” is 2-place, “I trust Alice to do X” is 3-place”).
Ah, yeah. I was thinking about it as like
adamTrusts(person, thing)but the more general concept of justtrust, I agree about it being 3-place.