In mathematics, the word “is” seems justified. Two plus two IS four and even God himself can’t change that fact; “Two plus two is four” seems to live in its own pristine, immutable world, entirely beyond the reach of any outside power to change. — Art48

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2

Added: "is" as used here is short for "is equal to".

“Two plus two is four” — Art48

Even in Math, one cannot state this in a general way. Two centimeters plus two millimeters do not equal four. (Four what?) They are just equal to "two centimeters and two millimeters". You can only add homogeneous things. Even if both centimeters and millimeters are units of distance, they are heterogeneous. In Math, they are called "incommensurable" (being of different kinds, degrees or dimensions).
(BTW, in Math it is always better to use the term "equals" than "is", since the latter has multiple meanings as I describe below.)

One has to differentiate between the different meanings of the word "is" ("be").
"Be" can mean exist, be present, take place, position in space, come from (some place). And of course, "equal", as described above. It can also refer to a condition or state, age, meaning/signification, attribute/characteristic, and more.

So, which of all of the above meanings of "is" are you against? (Re: "Against 'is'")

my children ARE wonderful; democracy IS the best form of government ... — Art48

These refer to attributes you assign to persons and things. They are your opinion; part of your reality. They are true for you. How certain you are about them does not matter.

Outside you, things are what they are. (Re: “it is what it is.”).
This, depending on the context in which it is stated, it may be just an "empty" statement, meaning nothing in particular, or it may mean something like "be realistic", "try to see things as they are", etc. All of which are relative, indicative or figures of speech. Because no one can actually see things "exactly as they are". One can only do that on a scale: from falsifying facts, to being biased about something, to being honest and showing selflessness in one's judgment and behavior regarding something.
A classic example: "Please try to see me as I am".

So, I cannot see anything "against 'is'"! :smile:

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority — Art48

Not to any competent language user.

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority — Art48

And the problem doesn't go away when using other words instead of "is".
Because the problem isn't in the verb "to be", but primarily in the use of the indicative grammatical mood for making declarative statetments about other people and things.

To avoid the feel of speaking with god-like authority, one would need to speak in I-messages.

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority
— Art48

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

Only under the proviso that such a "competent language user" holds certain other beliefs.
Such as, "Whatever a person says is only their own opinion and not necessarily objective truth."

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority
— Art48

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

I like psychologist George Kelly’s approach:

“If I say "the floor is hard," I employ a language system in which the subject-predicate relationship inheres in the subject itself. It is the floor which is hard, and that is its nature, regardless of who says so. The statement stands, not because the speaker said it, but because the floor
happened to be what it is. The sentence's validity stems from the floor and not from the speaker.

Suppose our verbs could be cast in the invitational mood. This is to say that instead of being used in the popular indicative mood of objective speech, or in one of the other moods recognized by our language – conditional, subjunctive, or imperative – a verb could be cast in a form which would suggest to the listener that a certain novel interpretation of an object might be entertained. For example, I might say, "Suppose we regard the floor as if it were hard."
If I make such a statement I immediately find myself in an interesting position. The statement leaves both the speaker and the listener, not with a conclusion on their hands, but in a posture of expectancy suppose we do regard the floor as if it were hard, what then? A verb employed in the invitational mood, assuming our language had such a mood, would have the effect of orienting one to the future, not merely to the present or to the past.”

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

Explain yourself. Do you have some special mathematical definition of "is"?

Two centimeters plus two millimeters do not equal four. (Four what?) They are just equal to "two centimeters and two millimeters". — Alkis Piskas

Why introduce this non sequitur? "2 + 2" has nothing to do with "two centimeters and two millimeters". It's like saying "red and yellow make orange" must be false because "red firetruck and yellow car don't make orange anything". Category error.

If you still want to introduce mysticism into math, then what do you do with the sentence, "two centimeters and two millimeters is four units of length measurement"? Seems OK to me. So "2 + 2 is (still) 4".

(Next we'll have TPF worthies jumping in to claim zero is not a number, and lines are not made of points.)

The problem you are talking about seems not specifically related to the verb "to be" but to any verb and any statement that is not formulated as uncertain.

Why introduce this non sequitur? "2 + 2" has nothing to do with "two centimeters and two millimeters" — Real Gone Cat

I was referring to the general statement “Two plus two is four”, which is presented as if it is a law of the Universe (Re: "seems to live in its own pristine, immutable world, entirely beyond the reach of any outside power to change"). "Two and two" what? If the context of numbers were mentioned or if the statement were "2 plus 2 equals 4", then there wouldn't be a doubt. But it wasn't. Hence my example with centimeters and millimeters just to show why not any "two" can fit to this equation.
Is it more clear now?

E-Prime — Art48

There's a term I haven't heard in a good while. But I mentioned Korzybski's General Semantics only a few weeks ago, somewhere here...

"Is" in English has a few senses. Most folk can work it out from context. In logic it's parsed as "f(x)", "x=x" or "p≡p" to great clarity.

Getting rid of it altogether is surely an overreaction.

No. It's still a category error. "Two plus two is four" clearly implies numbers. "Two" and "two centimeters" are not the same. Adding units (cm, mm) changes the sentence.

What is your definition of "is"? (asked Bill Clinton).

"Suppose we regard the floor as if it were hard." — Joshs

NIce.

Do you have some special mathematical definition of "is"? — Real Gone Cat

Nothing special. The OP said:

“Two plus two is four” — Art48

This is commonly understood to mean two plus two equals four and not two plus two is the same thing as four. 3+1 "is" 4 in the sense of equals 4 but not that 3+1 and 2+2 are the same thing.

We could do without "is": 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 2+2=3+1.

So you've changed the meaning of "is" within a single sentence. Clearly 3+1 does not look like 2+2, but neither does it look like 4. To say "3+1 is 4" but "3+1 is not 2+2" is incoherent.

Wait. I think I've got it now. You're thinking of "4" as the name of a set whose elements include "3+1", "2+2", etc. So a better sentence would be, "3+1 is a type of 4".

But then is there another set called "2+2"? What belongs to it?

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

The comment seems irrelevant to this thread.

So, which of all of the above meanings of "is" are you against? — Alkis Piskas

I disapprove of statements that use "is" to purportedly make a statement about objective reality that hides the fact that the statement better qualifies as someone's experience of objective reality.

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

There is some truth to your statement. (Notice how "is" makes that sentence about objective reality. I should have said "I partially agree with your statement.) So, if I say "This ice cream tastes good" most people know I mean "This ice cream tastes good to me." But someone might mistake "The floor is hard" as a statement about objective reality. See my next comment.

“If I say "the floor is hard, . . ." — Joshs

"The floor is hard" is a statement about objective reality. Compared to a diamond, the floor is soft. Compared to neutron stars the floor isn't much more than a wisp of smoke.

Getting rid of it altogether is surely an overreaction. — Banno

Agree. But being aware of how "is" tends to remove the speaker from the statement so the statement appears to be objective reality seems reasonable.

Again, an overreaction. Putting a sentence in the third person does much the same thing.

So you've changed the meaning of "is" within a single sentence. — Real Gone Cat

I haven't changed anything. "2+2 is 4" never meant anything other than 2+2=4. The point of saying that 3+1 is not 2+2 was to indicate that "is" means equal and not the same thing

The first and the second paragraphs in your Kelly quote seem to offer different takes on "is." But there are still more moods and nuances. We can report, insist, offer, suppose, pretend, etc.

The problem you are talking about seems not specifically related to the verb "to be" but to any verb and any statement that is not formulated as uncertain. — Babbeus

Exactly, only we don't even need to expressly qualify statements as uncertain - we only do that occasionally for emphasis. Otherwise, language norms, context and tone do the job for us.

(Not all languages even employ "to be" the way English does. In Russian, for example, you would say something like "Floor - hard.")

The comment seems irrelevant to this thread. — Art48

The thread is about the use of the term "is". You start with a mathematica example, but "is" as it is used here simply means equal to.

Rather than:

Force IS equal to mass times acceleration. — Art48

you could say: force equals mass times acceleration.

Or are you objecting to this as well because it seems to confer godlike authority?

you could say: force equals mass times acceleration.
Or are you objecting to this as well because it seems to confer godlike authority? — Fooloso4

Object is too strong a work. Certainly, the world will continue using "is" as it has in the past. But, yes, "force equals mass times acceleration" is a statement about objective reality when in actuality it is what we believed before Einstein.

You are aware that 2+2 = 3+1 ?

Agreed that "2+2" is not the same thing as "4" - one requires three keystrokes, and the other just one. So if "is" means equals (as you say), how can you claim "3+1 is not 2+2"?

You want to find mysticism here. I stand by my claim : you are playing fast and loose with your definitions.

So, if I say "This ice cream tastes good" most people know I mean "This ice cream tastes good to me." But someone might mistake "The floor is hard" as a statement about objective reality. See my next comment.

“If I say "the floor is hard, . . ."
— Joshs
"The floor is hard" is a statement about objective reality. Compared to a diamond, the floor is soft. Compared to neutron stars the floor isn't much more than a wisp of smoke. — Art48

Let me see if I understand this. You’re making a distinction between the legitimate use of the word ‘is’ to make a statement about objective reality vs the use of the word ‘is’ to state a subjective preference, and your only concern here is with confusions between the two contexts that result in a subjective use of ‘is’ appearing to be an objective use?

You are aware that 2+2 = 3+1 ? — Real Gone Cat

Of course!

You want to find mysticism here. — Real Gone Cat

If we are given 4 donuts and I take 3 and give you one, you might complain that is not fair. Would you be satisfied if I defended this by saying that since 2+2 is 4 and 3+1 is 4 then 3+1 is 2+2? Or would you say, as I did above that:

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

Wow. I encounter so many people on TPF who do not know basic math, it's striking.

By your logic, if you kept all 4 donuts, that would be different from sharing them out 3 for you and 1 for me. So I guess 3+1 is NOT 4 after all!!!

I disapprove of statements that use "is" to purportedly make a statement about objective reality that hides the fact that the statement better qualifies as someone's experience of objective reality. — Art48

You are right about rejecting objective reality, because it doesn't exist.

force IS equal to mass times acceleration, and there’s nothing you or me or God himself can do about it. It just IS. — Art48

@Bartricks?

Two plus two IS [equal to] four — Art48

Force IS equal to mass times acceleration — Art48

What I would say is

1. Not that force is mass times acceleration (metaphysics)

2. But that force is equal to mass times acceleration (mathematics)

Having been strongly influenced by Korzybski and by e-prime - the work of his disciple David Bourland - I sympathise strongly with your post.
As a mathematician I must object to your example though. Saying 'two plus two is four' rather than the more formal 'two plus two equals four' will often lead to confusion. We just don't need 'is' in that context and it causes trouble if we do use it. The word 'equals' in mathematics conveys a relationship with a precise meaning that differs from that usually attributed to the dreaded verb 'is'.
I have worked on minimising my use of the the verb 'to be' over the past few years and find it a really helpful discipline, with profound benefits. It keeps you humble because you have to speak in terms of how things look to you, rather than making godlike pronouncements about the nature of the world.
It also encourages the use of active voice over passive, a very popular theme in the plain english movement that I really like.
Some uses do no harm, such as a prefix to the present participle - "I am thinking" - and even allow nuances not achievable in strict e-prime. Using it to express category membership (attributing properties) also seems harmless to me, and shorter than the e-prime alternative. Only the 'identity' and 'existence' uses cause serious trouble. I have seen and participated in several different lively debates on here over whether saying 'the cup is in the cupboard' means anything more than that if I look in the cupboard I'll probably see a cup.
And while I use the active voice, e-prime version in most cases, sometimes it seems wiser to use the passive. Unless one especially wants to chastise Niruba, one can get a better outcome from the diplomatic "Oh dear the door was left open and a cold draft is coming in" than "Niruba why did you leave the door open?" [again! you dolt!]
Some ontologists won't like you if you spruik e-prime, since it presents a direct threat to their favourite activity.
I find some parallels between an e-prime way of thinking and American Pragmatism - a philosophy that I also like.

As a mathematician, I have to know : why do you think that saying “two plus two is four” will lead to confusion? How might one misconstrue “is”?

There appear to be two uses of “is” in mathematics

• to indicate equivalence (e.g., two plus two is four).
• to indicate that an element belongs to a set (e.g., two is odd).

What else is there?

I breathlessly await your reply.