If I can't get inside of your mind (or my own mind), how is it that we can get inside of God's... — 3017amen

Yes, but, the bigger point here isn't justifying suffering, which is a common response. But, if at every point of the continuum of God's love towards humanity is put to question and in this case the simplest of examples, then something is wrong with our relationship with Him, even as an abstraction.

1. Says Him?
2. Aquinas, I believe?
3. Supposedly, no other book renders Him with such esoterics and grandeur than the Bible.

The theme that follows from the example of the burning fawn, is that either God is too incomprehensible to even talk about or that our notions about Him are fundamentally flawed.

Ya?

How complex does it need to be to satisfy you? — DingoJones

Exactly, the point here is that Occams razor has been applied to such a degree, that nothing simpler can be envisioned as evidential proof of a cold and distant God or a universe where there is none.

Does that make better sense?

Or, another way... If God's benevolence is so simple to deny with a burning fawn, then what does that say about notions of God himself?

We're discussing whether theories can ever be complete. — Qwex

What makes you say that? Quite interesting...

I've been very clear. I've given you a chance to answer, to tell us all what the hell you have in mind, but you respond with evasiveness. — jamalrob

Apologies, then.

My answer to my own question is that "I know" is vague because it seems to place the predicate on the individual speaker, when in fact, as others have noted, the truth of that statement can only be clarified or elucidated in a discussion.

Does that help?

I'm not sure of your position here. Are you for or against the use of the phrase, "I know"., assuming it is vague at all?

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. — jamalrob

Oh, well, to my defense, other people found it interesting?

Have you got anything to say about how it has been treated by philosophers? — jamalrob

Yeah, the Skeptics would have a lot to say about that.

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. — jamalrob

OK, then a thread devoted to vagueness in language use, cannot be vague itself, otherwise, there would be no need for it?

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

To my knowledge, formal languages, don't have this sort of issue present in them. Why is that?

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.

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.

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

What do you mean?

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?

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".

@Banno, any thoughts?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

But you're concerned with ambiguity, is that correct? I weigh 196 pounds. What is ambiguous about that? — tim wood

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.

Let's imagine that you and I have no shared meaning. What meaning, then, do you attach to the 100 symbols in this post immediately following this question mark:? — tim wood

None?

Not seeing the point here.

I don't want to be rude, so I'd prefer not to. — StreetlightX

OK, so, let's take that implicit example. Tact, appropriateness adhere to what standards, here?

Most people are not at all vague when they claim to know something. — StreetlightX

This sort of reminds me of the "Language is not passing information from one head to another" thread, in which I never participated in.

This thread is what happens when language goes on holiday. — StreetlightX

Please be more specific.

Absent that, nothing, not even noise, not even silence, not even gesture. — tim wood

What do you mean?

I feel like your reaching out for the outliers here; but, I don't know what's the point of that.

@Banno's showing and telling is sufficient to get the point across?

See my convo with @A Seagull. Does that help?

The problem you refer to lies within language itself. — A Seagull

On point.

Words inherently have a range of meanings. If I have an image in my mind that I am trying to communicate there are only a limited number of words that I can choose from (and even selecting an appropriate word is a complex process) and the final communication can only be a poor representation of the picture in my mind. — A Seagull

Well, it's not so much the limits at language, manifest in saying like "A picture is worth a thousand words"; but, rather, why the problem exists in the first place? Zooming out...

Have you considered asking said person? — StreetlightX

Yes, and no. As soon as I think about it the problem magnifies.

Should or ought-to, I ask that or how or why or when?

See the point?

As it stands, its meaning is set by convention. And as it stands, it seems to me, the truth of it is verified by evidence wrt some criteria, wrt a degree of satisfaction under those criteria. E.g., "I weigh 196 pounds," is arguably never, ever exactly true. . — tim wood

OK, so you're already assuming some pragmatic account of shared meaning, correct?

"I know..," doesn't do it for me, because I find zero ambiguity in it. Whether it's true or not a whole other topic. — tim wood

Whell, that's part of the topic-subject hereabouts.

Is "I know..." truth-apt or not?

Education teaches us, or at the highest levels, that vagueness is bad for academic writing.

So, it's also baked into the system of thought itself.

I mean, you can think of it as trying to get informal languages as close to formal ones as much as possible?

Why do you want to? — A Seagull

To enhance communication/language use?

I'm thinking you understand my question. — tim wood

Yeah, well, that sort of thing happens when we interchange the next logical progression of "I know ***"

That, and how-***

What ambiguity? If someone says he knows, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but what is ambiguous about the claim itself? — tim wood

Sorry, I got the whole thread wrong. I meant to say, how does one eliminate the vagueness of that phrase?

Here's the big one...

It is what it is.

Not my words, yours. — Brett

Then, don't only madmen start wars between nations?

Like, if we were back in Rome some 2020+ years ago, then yeah I can see your rationale as being applicable. Nowadays nobody is in the business of starting wars... Did I just misspeak?

But meanwhile real wars are going on. — Brett

Ambiguous. What's a "real war"? That definition got subject to revision after 9/11/2001, right?

But it doesn’t happen, does it. That has never stopped a war. You’re talking constantly in terms of defence. That’s fine, but the world doesn’t operate like that. Of course no one wants a war. But we get them and soldiers, not conscripts, are interested in it. — Brett

Uhh... no. Soldiers aren't madmen and are trained to obey orders, not a personal whim.

Forget nuclear in this conversation. That’s just a means of smothering the conversation. We’re talking about military action to win not just as defence. That soldiers and generals want to fight. They want to win. To win the war requires many battles. Each battle has a different objective. How many of those objectives would be a posture of battle ready but no action? Not too many. I don’t know if it’s a military theory to wait for attack. It doesn’t seem that common. Your theory seems to be just scare off the enemy. — Brett

We can't really forget nuclear, because it is the (deterrent) from full-blown conflict... nowadays. What prevents conflict, isn't the whim of some general or politician; but, the threat of the conflict itself and the losses incurred or instilled through deterrents.

What do you seem to be getting at Brett? That war is good or something?

Aspirational has nothing to do with reality. Hitler was never going to sit down over a cup of tea anymore than Bin Laden was. — Brett

I think both were not prima facie good examples of anyone in a Western democracy who would want to elect them as leaders.

Nowadays? — Brett

Yes, nowadays, because WWIII wouldn't leave much to any party interested in it, rationally speaking.

Think of a conflict involving nuclear bombs. There's not much to "win" from such a conflict to any party.

But it doesn’t work like that, does it? Otherwise there would be no war. — Brett

Yes, it does not work like that, inasmuch as there are no perfect circles out there in the world. But, that's the aspirational goal?

So we only train soldiers for defence, is that what you mean? — Brett

Nowadays, yes. (Some progress has been made in Western liberalist democracies as to the abhorrence of conflict or the limits of economics...)