• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

My drill bit broke

F

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
If someone (person A) makes a statement using an ambiguous word (for instance, the word, "criminal"), and if context doesn't disambiguate which meaning is on topic, I can understand disagreement between that person and others; however, once it's made clear which meaning is being used, and when the issue of talking past one another is solved, why in the hell do the others (person B, C, D etc) continue to maintain their position?

Let's say (just for stipulative purposes) that the two lexical meanings for the word "criminal" either speaks to whether an act is legal or illegal whereas the other usage speaks to whether the act is just or unjust. Let us suppose that a particular act is not criminal in the sense that it's not illegal, yet let us also suppose that the act is criminal in the sense that it's unjust.

If I say that the act is not criminal but fail to specify what sense I'm using, then yes, I can expect some disagreement, but if we're completely onboard that the discussion is purely about the legality, and especially if we all agree the act is not illegal, why continue to deny what one says when one says that the act is not criminal?

Let me give another example. It's impossible to jump 50 feet straight up in the air. Note, what I mean by "impossible" is important. You don't just get to pick which definition I'm using; otherwise, that is akin to putting words in my mouth. I'm specially talking about physical possibility, not logical possibility.

Yet, when I say it's impossible (and make it quite clear which usage of the term that's applicable), then you should not deny that what I say is true merely because the meaning expressed by those very same words would be different had the other meaning of "possible" been used.

This can make for an interesting time trying to keep our eye on the ball.

Person A: x is not criminal.
Person B: x is criminal.

Both are correct and not in disagreement because person A is using definition M whereas person B is using definition N.

What I have done so far is introduce the area of the problem. What I have in mind to discuss is actually a little more complicated, but I wanted to get everyone in the same ball park before drilling down.
 
It's called a drill, not a drill bit, if we getting into the same ball park.
 
It will take me a while to drill down into all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
I think this is a bit of a drill.

Let us be on our collective toes.
 
My thing is this; if I fail to disambiguate; heck, if I refuse to disambiguate, you may not actually in fact know what I mean. If you don't know what I mean, how come so many people think they get to choose whatever usage they want? It seems to be a loophole in language that people get away with abusing.

Consider the word, "bank." I could mean financial institution or I could mean a highland near water. There are others.

If I say I went to the bank (and actually went to the bank), it would be improper to deny that I went to where I said I did; however, it would be okay to deny that I went to the bank--only so long as what you have in mind is not what I had in mind.

Let's go back to the physically possible vs logically possible example. All physical possibilities are logically possible but the inverse is not true.

It's impossible to jump 50 feet in the air. True or false? If you don't know which sense I'm using, then although it's okay to assert that it's possible, as that's not necessarily a contradiction, it would be improper to deny that I am correct. People genuinely think it's okay to deny that I correct since what I said is logically possible. That's a problem.
 
What do you intend to elicit from this conversation, other than an obvious conclusion that the same word means different things to different people, and that many of those people are unwilling to concede that other people's meaning is one they should adopt...or at least understand?

Even your 50 feet airborne question isn't well defined....is it a human doing the jumping? Were they wearing an exoskeleton? Or were we talking about a bird which can easily jump way more than 50 feet into the air? Or if you were referring to a human, did you consider jumping from a height of 50 feet...downward?

I sense mataeology.
 
Sometimes a drill bit is just a drill bit.
 
phands said:
What do you intend to elicit from this conversation, other than an obvious conclusion that the same word means different things to different people,
Click to expand...

I don't really have much to say in line of words meaning different things "TO" different people. I believe words have objective meaning. Never mind all that for a moment; it can take us down a very long (and needless) path. Let us consider two different words altogether: "sex" vs "coitus." They have different meanings, but more important to my point, they are in fact different words. The definitions are different. However, even when comparing words that share the very same letters in the very same order, they too have different meanings.

My complaint is that people will respect the distinction when the letters are different but more resistant when the letters are the same. It's an unfortunate by-product of human nature when there's ambiguity.

and that many of those people are unwilling to concede that other people's meaning is one they should adopt...or at least understand?
Click to expand...
Words have meaning, objectively. Yes, people can stipulate meaning, and that's fine, but most people can have a conversation without using words in an alternative manner--alternative to lexical usage. If I tell you that I have ten cats and no dogs, I expect that you know exactly what I mean. If I told you that the bank charged me a fee for a bounced check, I don't think I have to worry that you think I just told you that land near a river charged me a fee for a dribbling mark. Many (many many many) words have multiple meanings, and it's often incredibly easy for us to determine what is being expressed.

If I say the bank charged me a fee for a bounced check, would you deliberately (and unjokingly) play word games and say that I am mistaken because a river bank cannot charge a fee? Of course not.

However, people do just that and with seriousness when they think context is unimportant. They do that when using identical words but not when the words are not like "sex" and "coitus" from earlier. Here's an example: there is a definition of sex that strictly refers to intercourse. If I use that specific definition of that word yet say I didn't have sex yet it's also true oral sex was involved, what will people say when I deny having had sex even though I had oral sex? See how this can go awry? They fail to appreciate that words have multiple meanings in such instances. Because they see other definitions that apply, they feel like they can find an inaccuracy in what I say, yet in circumstances where the meaning is conveyed with a completely different word, there's no problem.

Even your 50 feet airborne question isn't well defined....is it a human doing the jumping? Were they wearing an exoskeleton? Or were we talking about a bird which can easily jump way more than 50 feet into the air? Or if you were referring to a human, did you consider jumping from a height of 50 feet...downward?
Click to expand...
What? Okay!

Unaided by technology, it's impossible to use your normal legs that you were born with to jump upwards fifty feet in the air from a flat surface in your front yard. I will now make clear that by "impossible," I mean physically impossible. Essentially, I'm saying that the act is a physical impossibility.

So, is it possible? People will still chime in and say yes because of the fact it's still a logical possibility. The fact that the word is ambiguous seems to in their mind give them the right to think I'm wrong, but (but!), they don't do that merely because there's other definitions but because it's the very same word with other definitions.

Hope that clears it up some.
 
fast said:
I don't really have much to say in line of words meaning different things "TO" different people. I believe words have objective meaning. Never mind all that for a moment; it can take us down a very long (and needless) path. Let us consider two different words altogether: "sex" vs "coitus." They have different meanings, but more important to my point, they are in fact different words. The definitions are different. However, even when comparing words that share the very same letters in the very same order, they too have different meanings.

My complaint is that people will respect the distinction when the letters are different but more resistant when the letters are the same. It's an unfortunate by-product of human nature when there's ambiguity.

Words have meaning, objectively. Yes, people can stipulate meaning, and that's fine, but most people can have a conversation without using words in an alternative manner--alternative to lexical usage. If I tell you that I have ten cats and no dogs, I expect that you know exactly what I mean. If I told you that the bank charged me a fee for a bounced check, I don't think I have to worry that you think I just told you that land near a river charged me a fee for a dribbling mark. Many (many many many) words have multiple meanings, and it's often incredibly easy for us to determine what is being expressed.

If I say the bank charged me a fee for a bounced check, would you deliberately (and unjokingly) play word games and say that I am mistaken because a river bank cannot charge a fee? Of course not.

However, people do just that and with seriousness when they think context is unimportant. They do that when using identical words but not when the words are not like "sex" and "coitus" from earlier. Here's an example: there is a definition of sex that strictly refers to intercourse. If I use that specific definition of that word yet say I didn't have sex yet it's also true oral sex was involved, what will people say when I deny having had sex even though I had oral sex? See how this can go awry? They fail to appreciate that words have multiple meanings in such instances. Because they see other definitions that apply, they feel like they can find an inaccuracy in what I say, yet in circumstances where the meaning is conveyed with a completely different word, there's no problem.

Even your 50 feet airborne question isn't well defined....is it a human doing the jumping? Were they wearing an exoskeleton? Or were we talking about a bird which can easily jump way more than 50 feet into the air? Or if you were referring to a human, did you consider jumping from a height of 50 feet...downward?
Click to expand...
What? Okay!

Unaided by technology, it's impossible to use your normal legs that you were born with to jump upwards fifty feet in the air from a flat surface in your front yard. I will now make clear that by "impossible," I mean physically impossible. Essentially, I'm saying that the act is a physical impossibility.

So, is it possible? People will still chime in and say yes because of the fact it's still a logical possibility. The fact that the word is ambiguous seems to in their mind give them the right to think I'm wrong, but (but!), they don't do that merely because there's other definitions but because it's the very same word with other definitions.

Hope that clears it up some.
Click to expand...
The sender is always responsibel for the how the message is received. It may not be always possible to ensure this but the responsibility remains.
The problem you mention often occur because the one making the first statement wasnt clear which definitions he used and thus creates ambiguity about what the subject really is. It then draws in debaters that is not interested in the intented debate but a slightly different one that is consistent with you wording.
That this happens is unfortunate and attempts to quench this parasitical debate often fails.
So: ensure that you make clear from the beginning what you really discuss.

- - - Updated - - -

this not a drill, I repeat: this is not a drill. Not a bit.
 
I think fast is alluding to the annoying problem of people who seem intent on refusing to accept any context or discussion framework other than the one they think suits their agenda/argument.

We see this a lot when folks are talking past one another while holding a stubborn definition of the word 'atheism' William Lane Craig deals with this problem by saying...OK, I'll use the word schmatheism instead.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-definition-that-will-not-die
 
Lion IRC said:
I think fast is alluding to the annoying problem of people who seem intent on refusing to accept any context or discussion framework other than the one they think suits their agenda/argument.

We see this a lot when folks are talking past one another while holding a stubborn definition of the word 'atheism' William Lane Craig deals with this problem by saying...OK, I'll use the word schmatheism instead.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-definition-that-will-not-die
Click to expand...
Urrkk... i followed that link... uuurrk... dont do it! It contains the most evil, foulsmelling BS I ever seen...

Now I have to wash my eyes...
 
Lion IRC said:
I think fast is alluding to the annoying problem of people who seem intent on refusing to accept any context or discussion framework other than the one they think suits their agenda/argument.

We see this a lot when folks are talking past one another while holding a stubborn definition of the word 'atheism' William Lane Craig deals with this problem by saying...OK, I'll use the word schmatheism instead.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-definition-that-will-not-die
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is how we view theists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom