I am dismayed by the general direction of this conversation. The subject is vague and ambiguous words causing problems, there’s a back-and-forth between several high-karma users, and I’m the first person to bring up “taboo the vague words and explain more precisely what you mean”?
That’s an important move to make, but it is also important to notice how radically context-dependent and vague our language is, to the point where you can’t really eliminate the context-dependence and vagueness via taboo (because the new words you use will still be somewhat context-dependent and vague). Working against these problems is pragmatically useful, but recognizing their prevalence can be a part of that. Richard is arguing against foundational pictures which assume these problems away, and in favor of foundational pictures which recognize them.
to the point where you can’t really eliminate the context-dependence and vagueness via taboo (because the new words you use will still be somewhat context-dependent and vague)
You don’t need to “eliminate” the vagueness, just reduce it enough that it isn’t affecting any important decisions. (And context-dependence isn’t necessarily a problem if you establish the context with your interlocutor.) I think this is generally achievable, and have cited the Eggplant essay on this. And if it is generally achievable, then:
Richard is arguing against foundational pictures which assume these problems away, and in favor of foundational pictures which recognize them.
I think you should handle the problems separately. In which case, when reasoning about truth, you should indeed assume away communication difficulties. If our communication technology was so bad that 30% of our words got dropped from every message, the solution would not be to change our concept of meanings; the solution would be to get better at error correction, ideally at a lower level, but if necessary by repeating ourselves and asking for clarification a lot.
Elsewhere there’s discussion of concepts themselves being ambiguous. That is a deeper issue. But I think it’s fundamentally resolved in the same way: always be alert for the possibility that the concept you’re using is the wrong one, is incoherent or inapplicable to the current situation; and when it is, take corrective action, and then proceed with reasoning about truth. Be like a digital circuit, where at each stage your confidence in the applicability of a concept is either >90% or <10%, and if you encounter anything in between, then you pause and figure out a better concept, or find another path in which this ambiguity is irrelevant.
Richard is arguing against foundational pictures which assume these problems away, and in favor of foundational pictures which recognize them.
I think you should handle the problems separately. In which case, when reasoning about truth, you should indeed assume away communication difficulties. If our communication technology was so bad that 30% of our words got dropped from every message, the solution would not be to change our concept of meanings; the solution would be to get better at error correction, ideally at a lower level, but if necessary by repeating ourselves and asking for clarification a lot.
You seem to be assuming that these issues arise only due to communication difficulties, but I’m not completely on board with that assumption. My argument is that these issues are fundamental to map-territory semantics (or, indeed, any concept of truth).
One argument for this is to note that the communicators don’t necessarily have the information needed to resolve the ambiguity, even in principle, because we don’t think in completely unambiguous concepts. We employ vague concepts like baldness, table, chair, etc. So it is not as if we have completely unambiguous pictures in mind, and merely run into difficulties when we try to communicate.
It’s a decent exploration of stuff, and ultimately says that it does work:
Language is not the problem, but it is the solution. How much trouble does the imprecision of language cause, in practice? Rarely enough to notice—so how come? We have many true beliefs about eggplant-sized phenomena, and we successfully express them in language—how?
These are aspects of reasonableness that we’ll explore in Part Two. The function of language is not to express absolute truths. Usually, it is to get practical work done in a particular context. Statements are interpreted in specific situations, relative to specific purposes. Rather than trying to specify the exact boundaries of all the variants of a category for all time, we deal with particular cases as they come up.
If the statement you’re dealing with has no problematic ambiguities, then proceed. If it does have problematic ambiguities, then demand further specification (and highlighting and tabooing the ambiguous words is the classic way to do this) until you have what you need, and then proceed.
I’m not claiming that it’s practical to pick terms that you can guarantee in advance will be unambiguous for all possible readers and all possible purposes for all time. I’m just claiming that important ambiguities can and should be resolved by something like the above strategy; and, therefore, such ambiguities shouldn’t be taken to debase the idea of truth itself.
Edit: I would say that the words you receive are an approximation to the idea in your interlocutor’s mind—which may be ambiguous due to terminology issues, transmission errors, mistakes, etc.—and we should concern ourselves with the truth of the idea. To speak of truth of the statement is somewhat loose; it only works to the extent that there’s a clear one-to-one mapping of the words to the idea, and beyond that we get into trouble.
I am dismayed by the general direction of this conversation. The subject is vague and ambiguous words causing problems, there’s a back-and-forth between several high-karma users, and I’m the first person to bring up “taboo the vague words and explain more precisely what you mean”?
That’s an important move to make, but it is also important to notice how radically context-dependent and vague our language is, to the point where you can’t really eliminate the context-dependence and vagueness via taboo (because the new words you use will still be somewhat context-dependent and vague). Working against these problems is pragmatically useful, but recognizing their prevalence can be a part of that. Richard is arguing against foundational pictures which assume these problems away, and in favor of foundational pictures which recognize them.
You don’t need to “eliminate” the vagueness, just reduce it enough that it isn’t affecting any important decisions. (And context-dependence isn’t necessarily a problem if you establish the context with your interlocutor.) I think this is generally achievable, and have cited the Eggplant essay on this. And if it is generally achievable, then:
I think you should handle the problems separately. In which case, when reasoning about truth, you should indeed assume away communication difficulties. If our communication technology was so bad that 30% of our words got dropped from every message, the solution would not be to change our concept of meanings; the solution would be to get better at error correction, ideally at a lower level, but if necessary by repeating ourselves and asking for clarification a lot.
Elsewhere there’s discussion of concepts themselves being ambiguous. That is a deeper issue. But I think it’s fundamentally resolved in the same way: always be alert for the possibility that the concept you’re using is the wrong one, is incoherent or inapplicable to the current situation; and when it is, take corrective action, and then proceed with reasoning about truth. Be like a digital circuit, where at each stage your confidence in the applicability of a concept is either >90% or <10%, and if you encounter anything in between, then you pause and figure out a better concept, or find another path in which this ambiguity is irrelevant.
You seem to be assuming that these issues arise only due to communication difficulties, but I’m not completely on board with that assumption. My argument is that these issues are fundamental to map-territory semantics (or, indeed, any concept of truth).
One argument for this is to note that the communicators don’t necessarily have the information needed to resolve the ambiguity, even in principle, because we don’t think in completely unambiguous concepts. We employ vague concepts like baldness, table, chair, etc. So it is not as if we have completely unambiguous pictures in mind, and merely run into difficulties when we try to communicate.
A stronger argument for the same conclusion relies on structural properties of truth. So long as we want to be able to talk and reason about truth in the same language that the truth-judgements apply to, we will run into self-referential problems. Crisp true-false logic has greater difficulties dealing with these problems than many-valued logics such as fuzzy logic.
The Eggplant discusses why that doesn’t work.
It’s a decent exploration of stuff, and ultimately says that it does work:
If the statement you’re dealing with has no problematic ambiguities, then proceed. If it does have problematic ambiguities, then demand further specification (and highlighting and tabooing the ambiguous words is the classic way to do this) until you have what you need, and then proceed.
I’m not claiming that it’s practical to pick terms that you can guarantee in advance will be unambiguous for all possible readers and all possible purposes for all time. I’m just claiming that important ambiguities can and should be resolved by something like the above strategy; and, therefore, such ambiguities shouldn’t be taken to debase the idea of truth itself.
Edit: I would say that the words you receive are an approximation to the idea in your interlocutor’s mind—which may be ambiguous due to terminology issues, transmission errors, mistakes, etc.—and we should concern ourselves with the truth of the idea. To speak of truth of the statement is somewhat loose; it only works to the extent that there’s a clear one-to-one mapping of the words to the idea, and beyond that we get into trouble.
It probably works for Richard’s purpose (personal epistemology) but not for John’s or my purpose (agency foundations research).