Forum Post: Progress thru Discussion... p3...
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 15, 2012, 10:36 p.m. EST by Listof40
(233)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is a follow up to a previous thread, on progress thru discussion...
There have often been issues in many areas of discussion (even historically), and so it may to help to look at some core aspects of reason itself, and for when we go into further important areas, even though it may seem unusual to approach this way...
When discussing something, we are using Language to do it. Therefore, when conveying our ideas, it can be important to look at how language 'works' to allow us to do that.
So let's look at something that i refer to as 'Definitional Truth'.
A definition is true - because it has been defined. It may seem strange, but its definition MAKES it true.
A Language is just a labeling system essentially. And a definition is what "labels" something with a "piece of language". Once a definition has been entered into a Language system, it can be logically evaluated against the definitions of everything else in that system.
Let's look at the statement: "A circle is round."
This is true because the definitions of the words in the sentence are consistent with each other. This is considered to be logic. Logic is about consistency.
A definition itself is always consistent with its own definition - therefore a definition is always logical and valid with itself. A definition cannot conflict with its own definition.
A question may arise at this point:
"But how does one validate (logically prove) logic/reason without using logic/reason?"
There is a problem with this question: "How does one prove logic without using logic?" Essentially, this is saying "how do you show that something is consistent with its definition, without showing that something is consistent with its definition?" Which is actually fairly non-sensical...
A definition is true, valid, and logical - because it is 'generating language itself'. Logic is a 'relationship of consistency' that is between definitions (and their own definitions).
If we are going to use language to convey ideas and knowledge, we are going to subject to some of the rules of language, when we use it...
Now this may seem unusual to mention these things, but i wanted to clarify a few points in general, and hopefully this will help provide some additional background as I try to follow-up with some further aspects...
Here is the previous thread this continues from: http://occupywallst.org/forum/progress-thru-discussion/
Dave
I am going to try to follow up with some additional ideas, although this may be a little tricky, as it may seem a little unusual to look at things in this way...
But let's continue on and start off with the following idea... will refer to this as the 'principle of justification'.
"It is impossible to justify an improper action (or conclusion) without using false reasoning (incorrect logic)."
Some unusual implications could potentially arise from this... One might ask, "But how can we accurately determine when incorrect reasoning is being used?"
There are possibly various different ways to do this, but one somewhat simple technique for evaluating statements that we could try, is what i call the "Principle of Exception".
Principle of Exception: "Any statement that cannot account for a legitimate exception, is instantaneously false."
Rather simple... but let's look at how this could apply to some common statement types...
Some common statement types using the various verb forms...
1.Is, was, are, am, were...(Actuality)
2.Has, have, had...(Occurrence, possession, etc)
3.Did, do, done...(Action)
4.Must, need to, have to...('Only option')
5.Can, may, could, can't...(Possibility, etc)
6.Will, would, won't...(Receptivity)
Let's look at a simple example...someone could say the following: "The bunnies in the backyard are blue." This is an 'actuality statement' - a claim of some particular condition being 'in reality'. However, if there was a 'pink bunny' in the yard at the time the statement was made, then we have found a valid exception – which would make the statement false. Alternatively, one could indicate a "limited range" that the statement applies to. I refer to this as "mapping"... Since all bunnies meet the sole requirement for 'being a bunny' – then all bunnies in the backyard are a member of "Bunnies". However, we could also instead 'qualify' the statement: "SOME bunnies in the backyard are blue."
This is sufficient to allow for an exception – as long as we do still have 'some blue bunnies'.
Ok. So this example was pretty simplistic... Let's look at a range of statements in true/false format... anyone can try the answers out if they like... In a follow-up, i will give some responses to the below examples with explanations...
1.T-F "You have to compromise what is fair in business."
2.T-F "You need to find a job that you like."
3.T-F "You have to consider your own best interests."
4.T-F "If you are in a swimming pool, you can't swim farther down than its depth."
5.T-F "America has to buy more oil."
6.T-F "There is no such thing as a free ride."
7.T-F. "You need to be more open-minded."
8.T-F "If trained well, anyone can run so fast they will beat the 5 minute mile."
9.T-F "You can't be lazy."
10.T-F "There are only so many cities to go to."
11.T-F "People are never going be reasonable, that's just the way the world is."
Dave
To follow-up a little further, and to help us approach evaluating statements like these... we can look at some ideas about context, as there can often be confusion in this area...
Essentially, there are default and implied contexts that can constrain circumstances, and so it may be better to specify them, when not obvious.
For example, if i say "It is safe to cross the street." when I am at an intersection... this really is for a particular moment in time and place (which is the default context for such a statement) - not all times (this actually is PART of the statement itself as the default context).
If i actually did mean to make the statement apply to all circumstances - (which i didn't when i stated it - even though i didn't specify it, since it is implied), then it would be inaccurate.
A different intersection in China in 2020, is not really a relevant exception to my crossing the street statement, because the implied context at the time of the statement and location, is already part of the statement.
Essentially, we can often be 'lazy' and use 'shorthand' for obvious contexts. Technically, i can make it more obvious and specifically state what the context is:
"There are no vehicles crossing this particular intersection right now, so it seems to be safe to cross from what I can tell."
But this is kind of obvious already if i'm at a street corner telling someone "it's safe to cross". Generally, the default context for this kind of statement is the time and location the statement is made...
However, we do run into problems when we do not constrain the circumstances to the range of their applicability (if it's not already obvious)...
For example, the definition for 'need' is essentially mostly a form of the word necessity.
Need (def): necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case.
It may be used as a very strong case of 'want' but this is of some concern. I would caution against this on the grounds that it is often used to try to make one's case stronger than it really is by 'implying necessity' when there is none.
If the specific circumstances for the word 'need' are not stated, then the statement can become too 'open' to be true.
"You need to believe in Shiva."
Now by itself (without stating a logical necessity condition) there is no requirement that you have to do this. It is more reflective of the speaker's want to ensure the meaning is clear, for example:
"I want you to believe in Shiva."
For a math example, let's say "2 + 2 = 4", the 'default context' for this is basic arithmetic - if we are going to deviate from this context we may want to specify this so our meaning is clear.
We can change the context, so that "In my 'polar coordinate math experiment', 2 + 2 = 7", could be true. But keep in mind, an obvious context for a particular statement is PART of the statement - since it is already implied and so exerts constraints on the statement (unless otherwise indicated).
In the default implied context for '2 + 2 = 4' there is definitely no valid exception in the range that the concept applies to.
"Bunnies are blue." for example is more general and is not the same as my initial statement... My initial statement referred to the specific constraints of the time and place (the backyard etc)...
I will also try to follow-up with some additional background on this, and also some responses to the 11 example statements...
Dave
Let's look at some background before going into the 11 questions...
Essentially, the reason for the exception principle is because of what truth itself actually is...
Truth (def): “The state of a statement or indication which is in complete consistency.”
Essentially what this means, is that any factor that is within the range that the language of the statement allows - but that is not in agreement with it, will immediately prove that the statement is false.
Essentially, truth is state of accuracy...
Accurate=Correct=True. Inaccurate=Incorrect=False.
Answers:
We do not have to compromise what is fair if we do not want to, why? ...because we can 'choose' instead to stand up for principles.
However, this does not mean that there will not be 'negative consequences' to us for doing the right thing (hostility, being fired, etc), it just means we do not have to do anything if u don’t want to do it. This is a fundamental principle of Free Will.
Principle of Free Will:
You do not have to do anything you do not want to do, IF you are physically able to resist doing what it is that you do not want to do.
You can choose to do what you want to do, IF you are physically able to do what it is that you choose to do.
So this just means that you can also choose to do the right thing. This is simply because anything that is possible to choose to do, is a "choice function", that is its 'nature'. This is what a decision is: to 'choose' to do something or to choose to not to do something.
Any statement that implies that you 'have' to do something, without specifying a necessity condition (or without the speaker admitting to implying a necessity condition), is not accurate...
Now there can be legitimate logical conditions of necessity, if the context is supplied or implied, like for ethics. However, for ethics this is often not properly done, as someone may imply ethical necessity, but then often not admit to it when called on it (like particularly in ethical relativism, where some may deny any fundamental ethical basis, but yet still are implying an ethical basis by asserting things like 'people just need to do this or that'.)
Some people work at jobs they do not care for... which of course would be an exception.
It may be beneficial in some ways to consider your own interests, but that does not mean you ‘have to’.
Serpico stood up against corruption in the NYC police department, against his own personal safety, with death threats as a result. You can stand up for what is right, even against your own ‘best interests or safety’.
To swim deeper than the pool is deep would be physically impossible.
Nobody has to buy something if they decide they don’t want to... the purchasing agents for oil do not 'have to' buy more oil. They may get yelled at for not doing it, however to say that 'if someone yells at you, then you have to do what they say' is questionable as well.
You can give someone a ‘free ride’ or a free gift anytime that you want to (if you are able to).
Any free ride into town, at any time in the past or present 'invalidates' the statement.
You do not have to be open-minded, however it may be beneficial to you and others.
Some people will not be able to run a 5 minute mile no matter how hard they train, like some elderly people for example.
You can be lazy and avoid performing any particular task whenever you want to.
True. “There are only so many cities to go to.”
False. "People are never going to be reasonable, that is just the way the world is."
This is an over generalization, and any exception can show it to not be true.
There are only a finite number of cities that have been established at any one time.
This may seem like a rather long or involved post, but i wanted to clarify a few points in general..
Dave
Not sure why there is the problems with the numbering... maybe because i'm posting from a tablet? lol...
A few minutes with this page and you may find another prexisting way to examine these hings.
http://the-stewardship.org/research/semiotics.htm
Essentially, and this is almost another level deeper than semiotics, our language works with genetic memory, phylogenetic DNA. The language awakens a memory with the meanings all things can have.
This was an interesting link, I hadn't seen that before...
It can be interesting or useful to look at theoretical aspects in different areas, like perception, etc...for academic or further reference for example, although sometimes the wording may become rather complex in this...
I sometimes try to simplify things somewhat, even just for myself, yet also trying to not decrease the content or quality of ideas if possible, but this can also be a challenge to do as well...
Thanks for the info, your previous list was also good as a different way of looking at some reasoning areas as well, like in media, etc...
Dave
Words symbolize meanings. Our language is a mix of many, and the sounds, or invokations are a blend of origins sometimes in one word. Egyptian, Latin, and Hebrew are somewhat root sounds, or perhaps a bit more in many cases.
The cognitive distortions tend to truncate the meanings of the word combinations, both those spoken and those inspired from others. Rather than understanding, a grossly approximate meaning is held. This does not suffice for foundational knowledge. Essentially frivolity is repeated in temporary indulgence as those using the distortions rather than understanding, must move to the next with it's deceptive titilation of implied veracity, only because it lacks fundaments needed.
Like 'Definitional Truth', often a fact of definition. But since each of us is allowed our own truth, by some ancient rule everyone seems to recognize, the truth is the meaning of a thing to a person. By the same rule, when things have great meaning, it seems that such meaning is largely identical to many
I see what u are saying... we could look at this by saying there can be two styles of language, a conversational style or a 'foundational' style, for example....
So let's say someone says to the person they are dating, "You are the most beautiful butterfly i have ever seen."
We know that this statement is not technically accurate, because a butterfly is not a human being, however we know what the intent of the statement is (to compliment or express affection), and so we suspend technical accuracy. This would be a 'conversational style' where the intent is the important thing - and this is natural and good-natured dialog, and is even healthy etc.... This often happens in humor and literary and poetic ways of talking or writing, etc...
However, in areas like science or education and learning, and areas of importance to society (ie politics, testimony, policy, etc) or when it is implied in subjects of fact or knowledge, we should probably recognize it is not good to misrepresent the accuracy of certain things, because otherwise the agendas may have questionable aspects in some areas...
But i agree that the 'styles of language', so to speak, may often become 'jumbled' together, which may cause confusion or may even be used as a rhetoric strategy, which may influence or affect important areas of discussion...
I am also going to try to follow up with some addtional specific ideas and principles that often affect dialog aspects... and mention some other possible problem areas... i guess i am trying to approach some 'working' principles, and therefore it can help to mention some background areas...
I agree, and see what u mean with some of the points in your description...
Dave
That would be an accurate way to describe the relaxation of language accompanying our conversation, but your example is pretty obvious, and the effect of this language use is based on subtle distortions with great complexity. When both parties are accepting it because their conditioning allows, erroneous basis for the relationships are established.
This seems to get in the way with everything except for business relating to needs which are commonly known by both parties. Social structures that are not based in culture are hard to maintain under this premise. This I think is something that burdens the effort of OWS to create activism that is meaningful.