It sounds to me like a goofy language game, akin to “How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg?”
That conundrum, to which the correct answer is “four”, is not a goofy language game. It is making the point that you cannot change the truth of a proposition by changing the meanings of the words in it. When you change the meanings of the words, you are creating a different proposition. It looks like the original one, because it consists of the same string of words, but it is not. Its truth need have nothing to do with the truth of the original one.
Would you still be able to see these words if we called black white?
I always hated that question due to its ambiguity. Those who state the answer is four legs seem to interpret the question as asking: “Labeling our current language as Language-A, and mentioning a different language Language-B in which ‘leg’ also refers to tails, and keeping in mind that we do not speak Language-B, how many legs does a dog have?”
However, for some reason I first interpreted the question as asking: “Labeling our current language as Language-A, and mentioning a different language Language-B in which ‘leg’ also refers to tails, what is the answer to ‘how many legs does a dog have?’ in Language-B?”
I apologies for both the brevity and ambiguity of these interpretations. However, I doubt that I am the only person who interprets the question in something along the lines of my fashion.
Definition is the basis of language. Without a common understanding of terms, there can be no discussion. Anything that has not been falsified is theory unless it is proven to be true. Without a common understanding of terms, how can we know that a statement has been proven false? Mathematics is the most rigorous language in the sense that there is nearly universal understanding of terms among professional mathematicians, but it is still a language. The answer to your question is unambiguous; if a dog has a set of appendages that we will call “Legs” that consists of four of what we commonly call legs plus one tail, then the number of elements in the set of “Legs” is equal to 5. We could say that the set L = {a,a,a,a,b). Either way, it is simply a matter of definition—not really a ‘goofy game’.
I think you have it the other way around. Definitions are based on language. Language is based on meaning. I knew the meaning of the word “red” before I had any definition for it, and I’d guess that so did you.
(with a smile) Perhaps we need to define definition. True that definitions are based on language. Also true, I believe, that if language is to communicate effectively, it will need commonly understood meanings for specific sounds/symbols. I may “see as red” what you “see as orange”. My guess is that we both saw and could differentiate between colors before we knew the commonly accepted terms for them.
It sounds to me like a goofy language game, akin to “How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg?”
That conundrum, to which the correct answer is “four”, is not a goofy language game. It is making the point that you cannot change the truth of a proposition by changing the meanings of the words in it. When you change the meanings of the words, you are creating a different proposition. It looks like the original one, because it consists of the same string of words, but it is not. Its truth need have nothing to do with the truth of the original one.
Would you still be able to see these words if we called black white?
I always hated that question due to its ambiguity. Those who state the answer is four legs seem to interpret the question as asking: “Labeling our current language as Language-A, and mentioning a different language Language-B in which ‘leg’ also refers to tails, and keeping in mind that we do not speak Language-B, how many legs does a dog have?”
However, for some reason I first interpreted the question as asking: “Labeling our current language as Language-A, and mentioning a different language Language-B in which ‘leg’ also refers to tails, what is the answer to ‘how many legs does a dog have?’ in Language-B?”
I apologies for both the brevity and ambiguity of these interpretations. However, I doubt that I am the only person who interprets the question in something along the lines of my fashion.
Definition is the basis of language. Without a common understanding of terms, there can be no discussion. Anything that has not been falsified is theory unless it is proven to be true. Without a common understanding of terms, how can we know that a statement has been proven false? Mathematics is the most rigorous language in the sense that there is nearly universal understanding of terms among professional mathematicians, but it is still a language. The answer to your question is unambiguous; if a dog has a set of appendages that we will call “Legs” that consists of four of what we commonly call legs plus one tail, then the number of elements in the set of “Legs” is equal to 5. We could say that the set L = {a,a,a,a,b). Either way, it is simply a matter of definition—not really a ‘goofy game’.
Be wary when issuing grand proclamations about language, lest you wind up looking silly to the linguistically-knowledgeable.
I think you have it the other way around. Definitions are based on language. Language is based on meaning. I knew the meaning of the word “red” before I had any definition for it, and I’d guess that so did you.
(with a smile) Perhaps we need to define definition. True that definitions are based on language. Also true, I believe, that if language is to communicate effectively, it will need commonly understood meanings for specific sounds/symbols. I may “see as red” what you “see as orange”. My guess is that we both saw and could differentiate between colors before we knew the commonly accepted terms for them.
I had assumed the audience had heard the joke before. The punch line: “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Which is the sort of thing that could be called “problematic on so many levels” — or just “goofy”.