Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[zorq]

I'm not going to play your "Don't try to prove me wrong" game. Give me a break.

The problem I see is that "not true" does imply "false." People who label things as "not true" only so to arguments. The judge in a trial does not say to the witness, "Sit down immediately! Is that true?" This has a reason. It is a non-sequetor. It doesn't apply. It is bad grammar. It is an inappropriate question and an invalid use of the word "true."

Every time people say "That's not true," the implication for the listener is exactly "That's false." People who are proposed with the Judge's question above are simply confused. They don't know what the judge is referring to because the immediately preceding command does not apply to the realm of true or false. Imperatives are inapplicable to the true-false spectrum. And that is the correct way to describe them,"Inapplicable."

Yes, they aren't true or false, they simply don't belong. This means that any way you try to shoehorn them into the true-false spectrum will be a failure no matter how sneaky you think your linguistics are.

P.S. The same argument applies to valid and invalid/not valid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

When speaking about deductive arguments, we do effectively mean the same thing by "invalid" as we do "not valid", and it makes sense that there would be a lexical definition of "invalid" to mean not valid, but doesn't the technical term, "invalid" have a stipulative meaning that means more? For instance, in your example, clearly any animal that is an invertebrate is an animal that is not a vertebrate, but no star is the kind of thing that can be either a vertebrate or invertebrate, yet it's still not a vertebrate ... And if I'm right that no non-deductive argument is the kind of thing that be either valid or invalid, then it's false to say non-arguments are invalid yet true to say they are not valid arguments, so even if it's true that the terms nearly always mean the same when discussing deductive arguments, they do not (as you say) nearly always mean the same thing--since they never nearly always mean the same when applied, as evidenced when they are applied to non-deductive arguments.

I agree that we would never normally say that a star is an invertebrate. Yet, it would also be confusing to say that it is not a vertebrate. On a formal level, it's of course currently true to say that a star is not a vertebrate because "a vertebrate" has ever only meant an animal, and a star is not an animal. Yet, if cosmologists ever came up with a new categorie of stars, calling them "vertebrate" (scientists are prone to coin silly names, as "quark" shows), then "a star is not a vertebrate" would become false. Similarly, people may well understand each other while calling an inductive argument "invalid". This may be because "invalid" covers more than just deduction, or even inferences, so that we can all extend the ordinary notion of validity and invalidity to a particular induction without necessarily meaning invalidity as in "an invalid deduction".

There also seems to be a certain amount of confusion as to what is exactly an inductive argument or reasoning. The point is that depending on your definition, it could be the case that the same argument could be regarded as either deductive or inductive depending on the intention behind it. In this case, it could become appropriate to say that it is an inductive argument invalid as a deductive argument.

So, specific examples of some typical inductions would help.
EB

 

[zorq]

I don't really like the star-vertibrate example. I think a better one would be, is "What color is discord?" Color as we know can only apply to physical objects and more specifically the beams of light that are reflected/emitted from them. Abstract ideas have no physical form and therefore exist in a completely different realm. To say that discord is not yellow is technically a true statement but only because it is inappropriate to describe a status of human relationships with a word that represents a specific electromagnetic wavelength.

Someone who says harmony is blue isn't lying. They are speaking nonsense.

 

[fast]

I don't really like the star-vertibrate example. I think a better one would be, is "What color is discord?" Color as we know can only apply to physical objects and more specifically the beams of light that are reflected/emitted from them. Abstract ideas have no physical form and therefore exist in a completely different realm. To say that discord is not yellow is technically a true statement but only because it is inappropriate to describe a status of human relationships with a word that represents a specific electromagnetic wavelength.

Someone who says harmony is blue isn't lying. They are speaking nonsense.

You say that "discord is not yellow" is technically a true statement, and there was once a time when I would have believed that too, but because the sentence makes a category error and fails to therefore express a proposition, and because sentences that fail to express propositions are neither true or false, I no longer hold that view.

 

[zorq]

I don't really like the star-vertibrate example. I think a better one would be, is "What color is discord?" Color as we know can only apply to physical objects and more specifically the beams of light that are reflected/emitted from them. Abstract ideas have no physical form and therefore exist in a completely different realm. To say that discord is not yellow is technically a true statement but only because it is inappropriate to describe a status of human relationships with a word that represents a specific electromagnetic wavelength.

Someone who says harmony is blue isn't lying. They are speaking nonsense.

You say that "discord is not yellow" is technically a true statement, and there was once a time when I would have believed that too, but because the sentence makes a category error and fails to therefore express a proposition, and because sentences that fail to express propositions are neither true or false, I no longer hold that view.

Exactly.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The sentence "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" was coined by Bertrand Russell as a typical meaningless sentence to make the point that such sentences are neither true nor false.

But W.V. Quine disagreed with him. According to him, for a sentence to be false is nothing else but for it not to be true. Quadruplicity doesn't drink anything, so the sentence is just false.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The sentence "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" was coined by Bertrand Russell as a typical meaningless sentence to make the point that such sentences are neither true nor false.

But W.V. Quine disagreed with him. According to him, for a sentence to be false is nothing else but for it not to be true. Quadruplicity doesn't drink anything, so the sentence is just false.
EB

I think I agree with Russell. Phrases like that fall under the category of "Not even wrong". Something being false implies that you can look at the statement and point to where it is that it fails a truth test. Meaningless phrase are just ... meaningless.

 

[fast]

Let me start over. If I'm correct and inductive arguments (a kind of non-deductive argument) are not the kinds of arguments that are invalid (or valid, for that matter) yet true to say of them that they are not valid arguments (and of course not invalid either), and if you agree with me (or if you can expound on the issue despite a contrary belief), what are some possible counter arguments to the objection that the very meaning of the word, "invalid" is not valid.

One possible way would be to argue that the word, "validity" as used in logic has a stipulative usage and therefore deny that the lexical usage of the term is applicable. However, I don't want to go down that road, easy as it may be. I want to use the word that denotes the meaning as used in our lexicon; hence, I'm willing to concede that the term means not valid, and with that hinderance, I'm still looking for a way out.

One way to do that is to take advantage of the fact that words are ambiguous within our lexicon and call on a different meaning (yet lexical and of course non-stipulative), but I don't want to even do that. I'm boxing myself into a corner, but I believe there is a way to rationally argue my way out, and I've heard it explained before, and it takes a very clear understanding to pull it off, but I can't for the life of me recall just how to go about it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The sentence "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" was coined by Bertrand Russell as a typical meaningless sentence to make the point that such sentences are neither true nor false.

But W.V. Quine disagreed with him. According to him, for a sentence to be false is nothing else but for it not to be true. Quadruplicity doesn't drink anything, so the sentence is just false.
EB

I think I agree with Russell. Phrases like that fall under the category of "Not even wrong". Something being false implies that you can look at the statement and point to where it is that it fails a truth test. Meaningless phrase are just ... meaningless.

The difficulty is that the sentence is not entirely meaningless. History has plenty of examples of terms and expressions that would have been meaningless to people a century ago, or even ten years ago, which now have definitions in dictionaries. That we don't understand it also doesn't entail that the person saying it doesn't mean anything. In this particular case, it seems to me it has a bare-bone meaning. I think that's what Quine meant. And category mistakes usually fall into this category of sentences that have a meaning but that some people don't accept as meaningful, usually because there is no material referent to it, or rather they think there is no referent to it. The term "checkered sun" is a category mistake since there are no checkered stars in the cosmos and stars are not the kind of things that are checkered but we can all imagine some kind of checkered sun (possibly all different from one another!), so it definitely means something, even though it has no referent in the material world. It's still a category mistake, but then the notion of category mistake really belong to rhethoric, not philosophy.
EB

 

[Artemus]

Someone who says harmony is blue isn't lying. They are speaking nonsense.

My daughter has multiple forms of  synesthesia, including  chromesthesia, so would disagree with you. Is that relevant to the discussion?

(Discordance looks like "clown vomit" to her.)

 

[fast]

The sentence "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" was coined by Bertrand Russell as a typical meaningless sentence to make the point that such sentences are neither true nor false.

But W.V. Quine disagreed with him. According to him, for a sentence to be false is nothing else but for it not to be true. Quadruplicity doesn't drink anything, so the sentence is just false.
EB

I think I agree with Russell. Phrases like that fall under the category of "Not even wrong". Something being false implies that you can look at the statement and point to where it is that it fails a truth test. Meaningless phrase are just ... meaningless.

[...] History has plenty of examples of terms and expressions that would have been meaningless to people a century ago, or even ten years ago, which now have definitions in dictionaries. That we don't understand it also doesn't entail that the person saying it doesn't mean anything.

The meaning of a term is independent of what a person may happen to mean when using a term.

 

[Wiploc]

Every time people say "That's not true," the implication for the listener is exactly "That's false."

That's not true. Also, it is false.

A sentence is truth apt if there is some context in which it could be uttered (with its present meaning) and express a true or false proposition. Sentences that are not apt for truth include questions and commands, and, more controversially, paradoxical sentences of the form of the Liar (‘this sentence is false’); or sentences (‘you will not smoke’) whose apparent function is to make an assertion, but which may instead be regarded as expressing prescriptions or attitudes, rather than being in the business of aiming at truth or falsehood.
---http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845

Consider this example:

Joe: "The sun rose this morning."

Sara: "No, it didn't. The earth turned while the sun stayed still."

As Einstein pointed out, motion is relative to the observer. So neither Joe and Sara is more correct than the other. They are expressing viewpoints, not truths. Their claims are not truth-apt.

-

I love the above example. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people think the earth "really" spins, so they don't benefit from the example. It's Einstein versus people who don't get it, and the people who don't get it are winning.

 

[fast]

As Einstein pointed out, motion is relative to the observer.

Did he really say that? Seems to me that motion is independent of the observer. Perhaps he meant that perception of motion is relative to the observer. Interesting stuff though.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of people think the earth "really" spins, so they don't benefit from the example. It's Einstein versus people who don't get it, and the people who don't get it are winning.

<should I superglue my globe so it doesn't rotate?> I really should of studied more science.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Someone who says harmony is blue isn't lying. They are speaking nonsense.

My daughter has multiple forms of  synesthesia, including  chromesthesia, so would disagree with you. Is that relevant to the discussion?

(Discordance looks like "clown vomit" to her.)

Yes, synesthesia is very relevant as it shows that the words spoken have a meaning which is dependent on the speaker, not on some collective convention that the speaker may not know or knows but doesn't make sense to him or her.

Of course, what the listener understand is the meaning that he or she attributes to these words, meaning which can of course be different from that of the speaker. Which explains pretty good why we often fail to understand each other.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

[...] History has plenty of examples of terms and expressions that would have been meaningless to people a century ago, or even ten years ago, which now have definitions in dictionaries. That we don't understand it also doesn't entail that the person saying it doesn't mean anything.

The meaning of a term is independent of what a person may happen to mean when using a term.

What do you mean?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Consider this example:
Joe: "The sun rose this morning."
Sara: "No, it didn't. The earth turned while the sun stayed still."
As Einstein pointed out, motion is relative to the observer. So neither Joe and Sara is more correct than the other. They are expressing viewpoints, not truths. Their claims are not truth-apt.
I love the above example. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people think the earth "really" spins, so they don't benefit from the example.

As I understand it, you are saying that there is no actual physical difference between me spinning clockwise with the universe staying put and the universe spinning anticlockwise and me staying put (or vise versa).

Can you confirm?
EB

 

[fast]

[...] History has plenty of examples of terms and expressions that would have been meaningless to people a century ago, or even ten years ago, which now have definitions in dictionaries. That we don't understand it also doesn't entail that the person saying it doesn't mean anything.

The meaning of a term is independent of what a person may happen to mean when using a term.

What do you mean?
EB

The lexical meaning of terms is a function of collective usage, not individual usage, so a word will continue to mean just what it means despite what anyone may just so happen to mean when using a word.

 

[Wiploc]

Did he really say that?

Yup.

Seems to me that motion is independent of the observer. Perhaps he meant that perception of motion is relative to the observer. Interesting stuff though.

No. He means that there is no such thing as "stopped in space." You can only be stopped relative to something moving with your own velocity. He means that when you consider the twin paradox, neither viewpoint has primacy. Each twin regards himself as stopped, and the other one as distorted by motion. He means that if I'm asleep in my bed while you are passing thru the open windows of my bedroom in a ship traveling at .99C (relative to me), and we each catch a photon from the same light source, your photon will be going a C relative to you, and mine will be going at C relative to me.

 

[Wiploc]

As I understand it, you are saying that there is no actual physical difference between me spinning clockwise with the universe staying put and the universe spinning anticlockwise and me staying put (or vise versa).

Right. It's two different ways of thinking about something, neither more true than the other. Choosing between them has to do with convenience, not truth.

Can you confirm?
EB

Not sure what you're looking for here. I learned it in grade school. It has come up off and on ever after. I've spoken with physicists about, for instance, the twin paradox. I believe it is universally regarded as true by people who deal in relativity, not in dispute. You know yourself that we regard the earth as stopped when we talk about cars going thirty miles an hour, or when we talk about sunrise; but we regard the sun as stopped when we discuss the solar system; and we regard both the sun and earth as moving when we discuss the galaxy.

Here's a link if you want: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1150/03Vct2D/relMtn.html

Or you can Google "relative motion" or "relative to the observer."

I'm not Einstein, so I can't tell you why he thought this was necessary to make sense of observed phenomena, but he did. It is key to relativity (hence the name "relativity"), which is not under challenge.

 

[fast]

Yup.

Seems to me that motion is independent of the observer. Perhaps he meant that perception of motion is relative to the observer. Interesting stuff though.

No. He means that there is no such thing as "stopped in space." You can only be stopped relative to something moving with your own velocity. He means that when you consider the twin paradox, neither viewpoint has primacy. Each twin regards himself as stopped, and the other one as distorted by motion. He means that if I'm asleep in my bed while you are passing thru the open windows of my bedroom in a ship traveling at .99C (relative to me), and we each catch a photon from the same light source, your photon will be going a C relative to you, and mine will be going at C relative to me.

Oh, no stopped in space. Yeah, that I get. I suppose nothing is not moving, in a scientific sense, but I'm not quite sure why it must be impossible, although I can imagine why it's unlikely to happen. Still, objects are in motion, even if some objects are not in motion relative to other objects, and such motion would still seem to me to be independent of observers. Fascinating stuff though.