All arguments are about definition, not truth

[paigetheoracle]

How we define a word is what causes an argument, not the thing itself: When the truth is disclosed, discussion stops stone dead or waffles on into eternity in an attempt to define what is actually meant/ real.

[wigglieverse]

Entropy: (of) the information in the message 'loses content'.

[jedaisoul]

How we define a word is what causes an argument, not the thing itself: When the truth is disclosed, discussion stops stone dead or waffles on into eternity in an attempt to define what is actually meant/ real.

As with most generalisations, this is an overstatement. If you had used words like "generally" or "often" I'd have not disagreeement with the statement. Taken literally, it is blatantly incorrect, as I'm sure you'd agree after a little reflection. What you are saying is that there is never a disagreement about the underlying ideas. So I agree in principle with creationists do I? I just don't like the words they use! Hmm. I think not.

[wigglieverse]

See how noise distorts the message.

Does it need more processing? What algorithms can be applied to discriminate the signal?

[paigetheoracle]

As with most generalisations, this is an overstatement. If you had used words like "generally" or "often" I'd have not disagreeement with the statement. Taken literally, it is blatantly incorrect, as I'm sure you'd agree after a little reflection. What you are saying is that there is never a disagreement about the underlying ideas. So I agree in principle with creationists do I? I just don't like the words they use! Hmm. I think not.

 

What you 'could' say is that you fight over what you 'believe' to be true as they do, not that either one of you is truly correct in your assumptions. When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint, you say 'I see' and stop fighting them. If you don't really see' then you keep fighting them in the hope of 'correcting' their view of reality. All this 'conversion' is about 'belief' (religion) as I say and has nothing to do with reality, even though you've both convinced yourselves it has - hence you fight and try to change each other instead of leaving each other in peace (See thread about forums being battlegrounds)

[jedaisoul]

What you 'could' say is that you fight over what you 'believe' to be true as they do, not that either one of you is truly correct in your assumptions.

Saying all arguments are about beliefs is completely different from my understanding of your original claim.

 

When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint, you say 'I see' and stop fighting them.

What I see is the depth of belief with which someone may hold an apparently (to me) irrational belief. So, yes I will give up trying to persuade them otherwise. But only because if someone has a closed mind, it is pointless expressing an alternative view.

 

If you don't really see' then you keep fighting them in the hope of 'correcting' their view of reality. All this 'conversion' is about 'belief' (religion) as I say and has nothing to do with reality, even though you've both convinced yourselves it has - hence you fight and try to change each other instead of leaving each other in peace

You appear to be saying "everything is belief" and "all beliefs are equal". Philosophically that is true, but it is not so scientifically. Scientifically we can go beyond our personal beliefs and arrive at objective "facts". Scientifically, all beliefs are not equal.

 

Anyway, how is any of what you are now saying relevant to this forum?

[Tormod]

When the truth is disclosed...

 

When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint...

 

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments.

 

Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

[paigetheoracle]

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments.

 

Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

 

Yes all viewpoints are biased but what I am saying, is that you are saying you understand what they mean, by what they say. Translated into a foreign language, you couldn't understand a word they said and concepts are definitions, not facts. To me a fact is something visible not something abstract like 'terms'.

[paigetheoracle]

Saying all arguments are about beliefs is completely different from my understanding of your original claim.

 

 

What I see is the depth of belief with which someone may hold an apparently (to me) irrational belief. So, yes I will give up trying to persuade them otherwise. But only because if someone has a closed mind, it is pointless expressing an alternative view.

 

 

You appear to be saying "everything is belief" and "all beliefs are equal". Philosophically that is true, but it is not so scientifically. Scientifically we can go beyond our personal beliefs and arrive at objective "facts". Scientifically, all beliefs are not equal.

 

Anyway, how is any of what you are now saying relevant to this forum?

 

As to your first point, I'd say your understanding of what I was trying to get across depends upon what you believe and that would depend upon how you define it.

 

Second, your rock solid point is something I can't argue with.

 

As for facts (point 3) see argument I bring up with Tormods post

 

I don't know - maybe somebody else has a 'belief' about linguistics that is different from thine?

[jedaisoul]

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments. Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

How are you defining "truth"?

[jedaisoul]

I don't know - maybe somebody else has a 'belief' about linguistics that is different from thine?

Or, perhaps, someone is expressing beliefs that have no relevance to linguistics? What definition of the word "linguistics" are you using?

[Tormod]

How are you defining "truth"?

 

In this context ("when it comes to arguments") I define truth as something that is "absoutely correct", ie the ideal answer. But I don't believe there is such a thing in a semantic discussion.

[Tormod]

what I am saying, is that you are saying you understand what they mean, by what they say.

 

Huh?

 

To me a fact is something visible not something abstract like 'terms'.

 

So, 2+2=4 is not a fact unless you read it?

 

I think there is a chasm between "fact" and "truth".

[IDMclean]

In my view, facts are observable and truth is a cognitive construct. To me, true and false, right and wrong are oversimplifications which serve a purpose in formal dualistic methods like mathematics or Aristotelian logic. Just as Newtonian physics is a good approximation for most cases so is boolean logic.

 

In science, all cognitive constructs are indeterminate: From phenomena, we form falsifiable hypotheses which we test to form theories about the phenomena.

[Kriminal99]

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments.

 

Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

 

One way to define these things is as functions.

 

You can say you truly understand someone else's idea, when that person agrees that you do because you have been convinced. (Or alternatively, admits it is impossible for you to understand it because he now realizes it is wrong) This means in a disagreement, one person has to concede defeat to reach this point.

 

In truth, is this not the only time you can completely rule out the possibility that you are right and the other person is wrong? At first you might think this would render you powerless because you must get your opponent to admit he was wrong to be sure of what he was saying. However, if your opponent refuses to do so and yet cannot produce a convincing argument that addresses your concerns, then even the most open minded thinker would have no choice but to postpone consideration of his claims until such a time as he CAN produce a convincing argument.

 

Thus it is safe to define truth in a similar manner - truth is when believe an idea and openly confront all sources of information that could contradict it to the best of your ability, and yet are unable to disprove your idea. We are safe losing our ideas to any one off the street who disagrees with us because such people are not always going to be able to produce a convincing counter argument to our idea.

 

This is the best possible truth I can have.

 

Some people may not like it because it would call me to disagree with something that is agreed upon by many. But the only reason this happens is because that many is unable to present an argument that deals with your beliefs, which means that many has little understanding of that which they believe in.

[Doctordick]

I apologize in advance for this post. I have had my second drink tonight (I like double Manhattans; they were in vogue when I was young) and, when I went to make my second, I asked my wife if it was alright. She said, “sure, as long as you don't go off on one of your diatribes about saving the world from their ignorance”. So I can't talk to her; I'll talk to Rade. :lol:

 

The human brain is the most sophisticated analog analyzer available. Feed it sufficient data and it will discover any correlations which can be attributed to that data. It is not necessary to understand its mode of functioning in order to recognize or use its abilities. For thousands upon thousands of years (even before humans existed) it has been adjusting to and forming models of reality. The model is called “common sense”: “common” because it is available to all and “sense” because we the, people of the world, sense that it is valid (our experience tells us that the predictions of common sense are correct). :confused:

 

It must be recognized that common sense yields the correct answers almost by definition as, if incorrect answers are generated, the resultant errors will shift the model. Those who scoff at the power of common sense should examine th progress of their field. Common sense yields incorrect answers only when its power is applied outside the range of data which established it. If sufficient data is absorbed within this new region, common sense will soon adjust and begin to yield surprisingly accurate results. :shrug:

 

Analytical mechanisms of explanation are of great value because their justification can be totally and completely understood. Errors are easily analyzed in order to discover their possible source. The analysis allows concentration of data gathering efforts into productive areas. However, pushed outside the data which established these mechanisms, the mechanisms are no more to be trusted than the unknown mechanisms of common sense.

 

The central issue of the above is to clarify the relationship between analytical models and an actual usable model of reality. So long as the region of application is to an area common to human experience, the analytical model must be held as subservient to common sense. If any prediction of our model is not in agreement with common sense, we must consider the conflict carefully. A disagreement can only arise via two very specific routes: either our model is not applicable or we are outside the the range of data upon which common sense is based. As scientists, we would like to believe that the second situation is always the case. :)

 

It is interesting to note that the successful models in history (those achieving major acceptance) yield result consistent with the current attitudes of common sense. The common attitude is that this is due to the willingness of the public to accept the supporting evidence. Could it be instead that common sense has already solved the problem? ;)

 

Another point to ponder is the probability that the next movement counter to current concepts is the one which yields the common sense predictions currently held? (Or perhaps the common sense of those who have actually thought about the circumstance; have at least lived the required thought experiments: I discount all those who have no expeience with the issues under discussion. Sorry Rade, I guess I just knocked you out again :shrug: ). Perhaps our best bet is to examine carefully the “unexpected” results of current theory.

 

But I am drunk ...

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Kriminal99]

IMO normal people generalize from their experiences using metaphors sometimes, resulting in an inability to precisely relate experiences of different types. Those metaphors allow people to persuade and motivate each other, and if a person values this ability to a certain degree they may even create whole belief sets linked together by metaphor (ie the earth mother cries when rain is polluted with man's emissions)

 

Metaphors do not provide a precise relationship between ideas. You cannot use such a relationship in deciding what to do or even think about one idea or the other. On the other hand, a person can generalize concepts from different situations by observing similarities between them and defining the concept accordingly... with the things that vary in each case left variable in the concept.

 

Reasoning this way allows someone to come up with a new theory after doing something like watching birds or the stars and extracting a general concept. It also allows someone to learn MUCH faster, because they are not learning the same things over and over again by completely isolating each discipline from one another.

 

Furthermore, people who do not do this might use the ideas in a single discipline in such a way that violates some greater truth... a truth they would have no way of knowing about because there is no way they could relate it to the discipline they are working in.