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
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. — A Seagull
What 'conceptual schema'? — A Seagull
What 'sentiment'? — A Seagull
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
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.What 'appropriate criteria'? — 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? — Wallows
Well of course! What other process can there be for the 'transmission of knowledge'?That's like saying that people are like computers and transmit knowledge in the bulk of it through language use. — Wallows
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
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". — 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.Or stated, otherwise, how does one set up a schema to decrease the vagueness of the word phrase "I know"? — 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.But, some degree of ambiguity is always present. — Wallows
Could you give an example of a kind of qualification that might make you think an assertion was less vague?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
E.g., "I weigh 196 pounds," is arguably never, ever exactly true. . — tim wood
It seems inherent, that we assume that the other person "knows" — Wallows
When a person says, "I know", what do they really mean? — Wallows
Could you give an example of a kind of qualification that might make you think an assertion was less vague? — Coben
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.