It is clear to me that language works. — Andrew4Handel
I think once we accept that language transmits facts we have a basis for knowledge, a foundation for theorising etc and for some self confidence. — Andrew4Handel
I do think this relies on empirical evidence so we don't need to believe everything a person says. — Andrew4Handel
In this sense we know words successfully transmit accurate, veridical meaning that we successfully use to negotiate the world. We tend to understand most of what people tell us unless it contains technical jargon. — Andrew4Handel
But, If I am receiving that data from someone, there can be a lot of subjectivity and connotation bias. I mean, the words do exist themselves, yes. Yet, we can make a twisted use of them and lie to others. So, I see the opposite of your point: we have to believe others to make decisions and keep up the communication. — javi2541997
In this sense I think quite a lot of philosophy might be based on false doubt. — Andrew4Handel
language transmits facts and not that all language is up for interpretation. — Andrew4Handel
Lies do not undermine the system because they can be detected. — Andrew4Handel
When someone tells the truth and gives us information they prove that language transmits facts somehow. — Andrew4Handel
I think I'm trying to say that language is not just for communicating data, but is critical to nearly everything about the way we live, because we are social animals. That brings a weakness, that it is possible to deceive us. But, in my book at least, that doesn't justify radical scepticism. — Ludwig V
Neutral data is very rare. — Ludwig V
I'm not sure what you mean by "not up for interpretation". Do you mean something like "has a clear and definite meaning"?. — Ludwig V
do think this relies on empirical evidence so we don't need to believe everything a person says. But our experiences keep us alive and have allowed us to rigorously manipulate the world so I do not believe our sense have a huge scope for misleading us. So I don't think occasional illusions or false beliefs are grounds to undermine some notion of truth. — Andrew4Handel
The only scenarios that might lead to profound skepticism here is the brain in the vat theory or solipsism. In which case all of these interactions could be created like an elaborate fiction for our consumption but there seems to be currently no grounds for believing this.
I think once we accept that language transmits facts we have a basis for knowledge….. — Andrew4Handel
So I can’t know anything unless some facts are transmitted to me by language? — Mww
No. — Andrew4Handel
I think personal experience is a rich source of knowledge. — Andrew4Handel
It goes something like this, I can imagine I am being deceived by my senses that there is a real world out there but what it could be is [insert what you can imagine] like a dream, brain-in-vat, simulation, etc. Then the philosopher goes on to say because this is possible will have no reason to believe we know anything. Radical skepticism is born. — Richard B
There is an issue it seems however concerning how we describe our experiences without language. It seems we need language to catalogue our experiences. It depends on what kind of knowledge we want and what we want to do with it. — Andrew4Handel
I think some skepticism is just incredulity which is more of an attitude or emotion than reason. — Andrew4Handel
I think language allows us to talk about things that may not exist but are based on things that already exist. It seems impossible to talk about things that have no basis in preexisting structures. — Andrew4Handel
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.