That communication presupposes the mutual ability to communicate - as defined above. But you're concerned with ambiguity, is that correct? I weigh 196 pounds. What is ambiguous about that? — tim wood

It is not particularly ambiguous, but it is also over-precise. You do not weigh 196.00000000000000000000 lbs. so what do you estimate are the error margins for your weight?

Language has the sole purpose of communication. And of course there are limits to the efficacy of communication, you can think of it as a bandwidth problem. — A Seagull

Why do you call it a bandwidth problem?

Language has the sole purpose of communication. And of course there are limits to the efficacy of communication, you can think of it as a bandwidth problem. — A Seagull
Why do you call it a bandwidth problem? — Wallows

The rate at which I can communicate data from my mind to yours is limited by the means of the communication ie sounds, or symbols on a piece of paper; its a pretty inefficient process.

The rate at which I can communicate data from my mind to yours is limited by the means of the communication ie sounds, or symbols on a piece of paper; its a pretty inefficient process. — A Seagull

The conceptual schema that is language, doesn't seem to be about data (information) passing one mind from the other?

I'm surprised to see this sentiment so adhered to.

The conceptual schema that is language, doesn't seem to be about data (information) passing one mind from the other?

I'm surprised to see this sentiment so adhered to. — Wallows

What 'conceptual schema'?

What 'sentiment'?

That goes to appropriate criteria. Within which, no ambiguity.

3.7k

↪A Seagull That goes to appropriate criteria. Within which, no ambiguity. — tim wood

What 'appropriate criteria'?

What 'conceptual schema'? — A Seagull

Well, isn't language a sort of conceptual schema? We all learn the same stuff at school, so nobody is really more efficient at communication?

What 'sentiment'? — A Seagull

That's like saying that people are like computers and transmit knowledge in the bulk of it through language use.

Well, that's an observational statement about something within the world-view of any participants of the conversation. Rather scientific and exact. But, most of the language isn't like that, so we might assume this as a statement immune to the sentiments of the need to qualify statements that are quantitative. — Wallows

Accuracy and truth are not aspects of ambiguity; they're different considerations. Can you please try to be a little less mysterious?

Accuracy and truth are not aspects of ambiguity; they're different considerations. — tim wood

Uhh, well. It's a matter of semantics, then?

@Banno, any thoughts?

What 'appropriate criteria'? — A Seagull

Well, for example, the notion of cost per pound v. healthy weight. My doctor regards my weight as represented as healthy. How exactly accurate the weight, or how healthy, not in question. We have shared meaning and understanding.

A Japanese purveyor of fresh tuna-fish, on the other hand - and his customers - might be very picky indeed as to the exact accuracy of the weight, to a whole different standard. .

Uhh, well. It's a matter of semantics, then? — Wallows

Time for you to tell us what it is you have in mind with "ambiguity."

Well, isn't language a sort of conceptual schema? We all learn the same stuff at school, so nobody is really more efficient at communication? — Wallows

Communication is a two-tired process, there is the sender and there is the receiver. Learning is a very complex process and not directly linked to communication. The interpreted meaning of a communication can differ from its literal meaning.

That's like saying that people are like computers and transmit knowledge in the bulk of it through language use. — Wallows

Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'?

What 'appropriate criteria'? — A SeagullWell, for example, the notion of cost per pound v. healthy weight. My doctor regards my weight as represented as healthy. How exactly accurate the weight, or how healthy, not in question. We have shared meaning and understanding. — tim wood

Well yes I was thinking that the information about your weight would be of more interest to your doctor than to a fellow philosopher!

Time for you to tell us what it is you have in mind with "ambiguity." — tim wood

Vagueness? Maybe, this can be demonstrated by a person lying about that fact?

There seems to me, to be some standard to communication that we implicitly agree to. That standard seems to get muddled when one talks about trying to qualify it, being that phrase: "I know that/how".

Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'? — A Seagull

One in which, someone learns some new facts about how to use language?

Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'? — A Seagull
One in which, someone learns some new facts about how to use language? — Wallows

But that itself is a 'communication'.

But that itself is a 'communication'. — A Seagull

What do you mean?

But that itself is a 'communication'. — A Seagull
What do you mean? — Wallows

The only way you can learn 'new facts about how to use language' is through communication, using language.

Vagueness? Maybe, this can be demonstrated by a person lying about that fact?

There seems to me, to be some standard to communication that we implicitly agree to. That standard seems to get muddled when one talks about trying to qualify it, being that phrase: "I know that/how". — Wallows

Call it refinement, and the sometimes need for it for accuracy/clarity. But these have noting to do with ambiguity.

A definition: adjective (of language), open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
"ambiguous phrases.". Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
"the election result was ambiguous."

Thus ambiguity is an artifact of the language actually used, and as such calls for correction, not refinement.

Fun question...perhaps the Subjectivist or Subjective Idealist would say something like : "No, you really don't know!"

Thus ambiguity is an artifact of the language actually used, and as such calls for correction, not refinement. — tim wood

This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that refinement comes first, and then a correction can ensue? But, some degree of ambiguity is always present.

Or stated, otherwise, how does one set up a schema to decrease the vagueness of the word phrase "I know"? — Wallows

Most commonly, people mean that they have a high degree of certainty when they claim, "I know". The only way to decrease ambiguity is through discussion - you will not get the english speaking world to change their ways.

But, some degree of ambiguity is always present. — Wallows

My point would be that sometimes clarity is not achieved, but that ambiguity is an either/or, depending on the words. That is, there is not always some degree of ambiguity present. And moreover, there should not be. Ambiguity, then, is in the language itself, not in the usage. In usage, it's better described as ignorance or viciousness.

Well, that's an observational statement about something within the world-view of any participants of the conversation. Rather scientific and exact. But, most of the language isn't like that, so we might assume this as a statement immune to the sentiments of the need to qualify statements that are quantitative. — Wallows

Could you give an example of a kind of qualification that might make you think an assertion was less vague?

It seems to me that 'I know' is a clear statement, though obviously not a complete one. The person may or may not be correct, but we get what they are claiming. They have excellent grounds to believe that X is the case. It fits whatever rigor (if any) their epistemology has.

We can't come up with a way to qualify the statement, since it would need different more complete explanations for the different users of that phrase. Because different people, even within the same paradigm, have different criteria and different degrees of rigor.

This is language we are talking about. We cannot make individual phrases, in general, be 100% clear. And if we did, they would be so specfic as to be less useful.

A scientific journal can have specific criteria for what it will publish in a sense as well grounded conclusions.

But words and phrases are meant for all of us to use to communicate in a vast array of contexts.

I am with that the word is clear. One can use other words if one wants to be more specific about one's criteria, the process of deciding that you know, rather than, say 'believe' or 'think' X is the case.

Every word you would use in your clarification of 'I know' could then be criticized as vague, since one could always go into more detail. And any clarification of the phrase 'I know' would either be just as vague or not as generally useful.

E.g., "I weigh 196 pounds," is arguably never, ever exactly true. . — tim wood

Right, and that's exactly why the phrase is ambiguous. We don't know who weighed you, how they weighed you, when they weighed you, and so the phrase is ambiguous. We cannot pinpoint the meaning of it. What does it mean for a human being, whose weight is changing by the moment, to say "I weigh …" and quote a static quantity? As there is clearly no correct way to interpret this statement, it is a perfect example of ambiguity.

I would have deleted the OP if I'd seen it before it generated a discussion. It's so lacking in anything philosophical or interesting that it looks like just an attempt to get on the main page instead of the Lounge, where your threads usually end up.

You don't know what "know" means? Have you looked it up? Have you got anything to say about how it has been treated by philosophers?

In what way is its use vague, as you keep on saying it is, with no explanation? You have not described the problem with "I know" or how it is vague. It's your OP that is vague. There is no clear question, and what there is doesn't make much sense.

It seems inherent, that we assume that the other person "knows" — Wallows

Not at all. When someone says they know, we don't just assume they do, unless it seems fairly uncontroversial and we don't have reason to doubt it, in which case we might give them the benefit of the doubt. But you don't give any context anyway; there are different ways of using the word.

What is the philosophical issue? What does this have to do with formal languages, which is something you brought up?

When a person says, "I know", what do they really mean? — Wallows

They mean

X is true
and
they have no doubt X is true.

That's what they mean and it is clear.

What does IT mean if they say it?

It means they have no doubt X is the case.

Is X the case? Maybe maybe not.

But that has nothing to do with the meaning. It seems like you are conflating the truth value of the that clause with the meaning of the sentence. The meaning of the sentence is clear. Whether the that clause in and of itself is true is another matter.

I know that Idaho is the largest state.

The person is telling us that they have no doubt it is the case that Idaho is.......

The truth value of the that clause here is false. But that does not affect the meaning of 'know' in the least. He means that it is true and he has no doubt about it.

Another way to describe this is you are equivocating on the word means.

Means as in what is the person conveying.
And then the other means as in what are the consequences of hearing this assertion. That we accept their assertion about Idaho? or not?

Two different types of 'means'.

There is nothing unclear about the meaning of know.

Could you give an example of a kind of qualification that might make you think an assertion was less vague? — Coben

Usually, when we want to do this, we look for less ambiguous phrases to get the point across. The ambiguous "I know", can get substituted with "to the best of my knowledge", which seems to encapsulate the phrase into something coherent or palpable.