Meaning of consistent vs "not inconsistent"

[Silvertomster]

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

Can anyone offer a reason why the phrase "not inconsistent" is commonly used here instead of simply "consistent"? Obviously there's an important difference between "consistent" and "not inconsistent", but I've never seen it explained well. An illustrative example would help. Thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

Won't there have to be a special rule of order dealing with, say, the length and number of speeches, in order for the rule in RONR to be consistent with "any special rules of order the Society may adopt"?

[Dan Honemann]

Come to think of it, maybe we better ask Mr. Gerber why it shouldn't be "rule" and not "rules".  

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Come to think of it, maybe we better ask Mr. Gerber why it shouldn't be "rule" and not "rules".  

Obviously you're joking, but the wording is perfectly logical. The following colloquy would be absurd:

A: Are there any Honemanns here?

B: No, it's just the one Dan.

[Dan Honemann]

32 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Obviously you're joking, ...

Or perhaps poorly educated. 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"Not inconsistent" is a test of a much lower level, or a test which is less stringent, than the test of "consistency" (i.e., harmony or correspondence).

• For two rules to be "consistent", then the two rules must share a commonality or share a parallel, of some attribute.

• For two rules to be "not inconsistent" all you need is for the two rules to be obey-able without a forced dis-obedience to the other rule. This, despite the fact that the two rules are dissimilar in every possible way.

Example.
Imagine two rules:

1. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor."
2. "At the annual meeting, a president shall be elected by plurality vote via secret ballot by those members present and voting."

Q. Are the two rules "consistent" with each other?
A. No. Why not? Because there is nothing in common, there is no common theme or unifying principle.

The sentences aren't even structured the same. -- It is as if the two rules were drawn from two different documents (!), and drafted by two different authors (!).
E.g., one sentence is grammatically active, one sentence is grammatically passive.
E.g., one sentence is phrased in the negative (to not do X), and one sentence is phased in the positive (to do X).

Q. Are the two rules "not inconsistent" with each other?
Yes.

The two rules can be obeyed simultaneously. There is no contradiction when executing one rule or the other rule. -- This, despite the fact that their structures, and their subject matters, are totally dissimilar.

 

[Silvertomster]

6 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

"Not inconsistent" is a test of a much lower level, or a test which is less stringent, than the test of "consistency" (i.e., harmony or correspondence).

• For two rules to be "consistent", then the two rules must share a commonality or share a parallel, of some attribute.

• For two rules to be "not inconsistent" all you need is for the two rules to be obey-able without a forced dis-obedience to the other rule. This, despite the fact that the two rules are dissimilar in every possible way.

 

Thanks, Kim, that helps. The examples, too. -

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

1. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor."
2. "At the annual meeting, a president shall be elected by plurality vote via secret ballot by those members present and voting."

Q. Are the two rules "consistent" with each other?

Of course they are.  If you want to redefine "consistent," why not carry that redefinition over to "not inconsistent?"  Or just use the standard definition of both - consistent means able to be true simultaneously.

[Alexis Hunt]

A mathematician would use the terms interchangeably. A logical system is consistent if it does not contain any contradictions, and inconsistent if it does. There isn't anything in between.

But in this case I think "not inconsistent" would still emphasize that what is important is that there be no contradictions: if there are any contradictions, the rules are inconsistent.

[Joshua Katz]

29 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

A mathematician would use the terms interchangeably. A logical system is consistent if it does not contain any contradictions, and inconsistent if it does. There isn't anything in between.

 

Well there's omega-consistency in between...

[Guest Nancy N.]

14 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Of course they are.  If you want to redefine "consistent," why not carry that redefinition over to "not inconsistent?"

I've just looked it up in three dictionaries, and I don't see where Kim has done any redefining.  I find most telling an example given in the Oxford American Dictionary:  "injuries consistent with falling"; that is, there is a relationship (or connection, I forget which) between the two words or statements.  Which looks to me like suggesting (or maybe almost actually saying) the statements about false witness and elections, while not contradictory, are not consistent, because they have nothing to do with each other.

On the other hand, The American Heritage gives "Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements" (as its definition, with example, #5), which looks to me as if the statements can be said to be consistent.  But it's weaker.

Which leaves me leaning towards thinking that the wording for the bylaw provision would be better as "consistent."

[Joshua Katz]

41 minutes ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

I've just looked it up in three dictionaries, and I don't see where Kim has done any redefining.  I find most telling an example given in the Oxford American Dictionary:  "injuries consistent with falling"; that is, there is a relationship (or connection, I forget which) between the two words or statements.  Which looks to me like suggesting (or maybe almost actually saying) the statements about false witness and elections, while not contradictory, are not consistent, because they have nothing to do with each other.

 

'Injuries consistent with falling' would be injuries which do not contradict falling.  A spiral fracture is not consistent with falling.  I don't see how this example does anything to suggest that 'consistent' implies a relationship.  

The opposite of consistent is inconsistent, at least when we're dealing with finite sets of statements.  Putting 'not' in front of something negates it; thus, if two things are consistent, they are clearly not inconsistent, and if they are not inconsistent, they are consistent.

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

'Injuries consistent with falling' would be injuries which do not contradict falling.  A spiral fracture is not consistent with falling.  I don't see how this example does anything to suggest that 'consistent' implies a relationship.  

The opposite of consistent is inconsistent, at least when we're dealing with finite sets of statements.  Putting 'not' in front of something negates it; thus, if two things are consistent, they are clearly not inconsistent, and if they are not inconsistent, they are consistent.

It seems to me, however, that although something can be said to be not inconsistent with something that does not exist, I don't see how it can be said to be consistent with something that does not exist.

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It seems to me, however, that although something can be said to be not inconsistent with something that does not exist, I don't see how it can be said to be consistent with something that does not exist.

Consistency is a property of sets of statements, not sets of things.  

If you identify a factual pattern with the statement of that factual pattern, you can say things like "X is not inconsistent with the car being in the garage" and, equally, "X is consistent with the car being in the garage."

It seems what you mean, though, is a state of affairs in which something does not exist (say, Santa Claus).  The presence of presents on Christmas would not be inconsistent with the existence of Santa Claus - true.  But similarly, the presence of presents on Christmas would be consistent with the existence of Santa Claus.  I don't see how the non-existence of Santa Claus gets in the way of the latter statement.

Further, even assertions about Santa Claus can be consistent or inconsistent.  For instance, "the young man with no beard, no hat, and who is mean to children is probably Santa Claus" appears inconsistent with our understanding of Santa Claus.  But, "the old man with a white beard, and a red hat, who gives presents to children, is probably Santa Claus" appears consistent with our understanding of Santa Claus, despite his non-existence.  "Santa Claus got food poisoning" is similarly consistent with, although unrelated to, what we 'know' about Santa Claus.  

[Dan Honemann]

Actually, I was referring to rules, as does the bylaw provision in question here.

[g40]

I would make an analogy of the difference between something "approved" and something "not disapproved".

Say, for example, as a parent you might tell your teen daughter she can only date someone that you have "approved". That is probably a higher standard than telling her that can date anyone that you have not disapproved.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, g40 said:

I would make an analogy of the difference between something "approved" and something "not disapproved".

Say, for example, as a parent you might tell your teen daughter she can only date someone that you have "approved". That is probably a higher standard than telling her that can date anyone that you have not disapproved.

Ahhh, g40 comes through for us! Good example.  . I'm not sure it's quite comparing apples to apples, but I like the analogy. It works for me. 

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, g40 said:

Say, for example, as a parent you might tell your teen daughter she can only date someone that you have "approved". That is probably a higher standard than telling her that can date anyone that you have not disapproved.

I agree with this distinction, but don't agree that it's parallel to the one dealing with consistency.  For one thing, two things are either consistent or not, while people can be in three categories - approved, disapproved, and unevaluated.  There's nothing comparable to the third for consistency.

[Guest DiamondEyeJack]

"not inconsistent only implies consistent and does not confirm consistent.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/3/2017 at 12:39 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It seems to me, however, that although something can be said to be not inconsistent with something that does not exist, I don't see how it can be said to be consistent with something that does not exist.

I agree, but the language requires only that the rules not be inconsistent with rules that the society has adopted, not with those that it has not.

Even so, I'd stick with the existing recommended language because it is not inconsistent with the desired interpretation.

[Guest Nematode]

17 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree, but the language requires only that the rules not be inconsistent with rules that the society has adopted, not with those that it has not.

Even so, I'd stick with the existing recommended language because it is not inconsistent with the desired interpretation.

I like you.

[Gary Novosielski]

18 hours ago, Guest Nematode said:

I like you.