Is human language fit for purpose when discussing complex subjects?

[Tank]

Having been on lots of forums for a long time I consistently see discussions degenerate into semantic arguments i.e. 'This word means that! No it doesn't! You don't understand me! Yes I do! But you said... etc etc' This often happens when discussions get really deep.

Do you ever find that human language isn't suited to discussing complex subjects? Or is the issue more the inability of the interlocutors to use language accurately?

[Crow]

I think the Latin and Germanic based languages aren't equipped well enough for how the use of language has evolved, especially since the social development associated with the internet. For example sarcasm is easy to detect in the spoken language but vary hard to detect in the written language, maybe this is something that could be solved with an update of punctuation, but currently causes misunderstanding and irate internet comments. There is also the problems with translation which the Latin and Germanic languages are widely inadequate for translation of languages such as Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, etc. and many misunderstandings can arise from such when the original writings aren't considered in reference.

The problems aren't just with language but the multifarious nature of humanity and how we interact with each other and language. I'm dyslexic and have always had problems with writing my thoughts down (that make sense to others), punctuation, and seeing the subtle changes in certain words like there/their, I'm just one example of how people can have problems with interaction when it comes to communication through the written word but there are many other problems.

[The Magic Pudding]

Ye well we have the redefining humpty dumpty super persons.



I hope Davin hasn't been discouraged by recent rebuffs.

[Stevil]

Yes, I find the English language limiting, to discussion and exploration of ideas.

But it is not just the English language, it is colloquial terms and common phrases and ideas that people cling to as if these things are unquestionable.

Everything is currently stacked in the theists favour, as our language has been influenced by theistic thinking for thousands of years. I think it is currently very hard to get most atheists to be philosophically consistent. No that we need to be, but it would be nice if we were.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You could communicate in code or something like mathematical symbols, but when dealing with abstract subjects you are always going to be running into the subjective experience of individuals, and everyone is going to express it differently.  You can't eliminate this by using any particular language symbology, as it is inherent in the process off individuals communicating with each other. Each brain is its own universe, and will have a unique way of expressing itself.

[DeterminedJuliet]

For example sarcasm is easy to detect in the spoken language but vary hard to detect in the written language, maybe this is something that could be solved with an update of punctuation, but currently causes misunderstanding and irate internet comments.

I've heard a call for sarcasm font. People say it jokingly, but I think it's actually a good idea! It would be a handy convention on the interwebs.

I do agree with the original post, as well. I think it has to do with the fluidity of language. When you are talking about very precise ideas, words start to fail because all words, to a certain degree, are imprecise.

[Stevil]

words start to fail because all words, to a certain degree, are imprecise.

Words are often loaded with multiple meanings, when people debate, the dishonest ones, take advantage of this

[xSilverPhinx]

For example sarcasm is easy to detect in the spoken language but vary hard to detect in the written language, maybe this is something that could be solved with an update of punctuation, but currently causes misunderstanding and irate internet comments.

I've heard a call for sarcasm font. People say it jokingly, but I think it's actually a good idea! It would be a handy convention on the interwebs.

I do agree with the original post, as well. I think it has to do with the fluidity of language. When you are talking about very precise ideas, words start to fail because all words, to a certain degree, are imprecise.

I think that in the case of sarcasm, what's missing isn't necessarily semantics and words, but nonverbal cues. Not everybody adds an emoticon which makes such intentions clear when they're being sarcastic.

[DeterminedJuliet]

For example sarcasm is easy to detect in the spoken language but vary hard to detect in the written language, maybe this is something that could be solved with an update of punctuation, but currently causes misunderstanding and irate internet comments.

I've heard a call for sarcasm font. People say it jokingly, but I think it's actually a good idea! It would be a handy convention on the interwebs.

I do agree with the original post, as well. I think it has to do with the fluidity of language. When you are talking about very precise ideas, words start to fail because all words, to a certain degree, are imprecise.

I think that in the case of sarcasm, what's missing isn't necessarily semantics and words, but nonverbal cues. Not everybody adds an emoticon which makes such intentions clear when they're being sarcastic.

That's why there should be a font! It would be the non-verbal cue that you need to get that it's sarcastic.

[Tom62]

I'm not a native English speaker, which means that I sometimes miss the finesses of what is being communicated. It is hard for me to read between the lines, to detect whether someone uses sarcasm or to decipher complex sentences that contain uncommon words or slang, etc. Sometimes, something gets lost in the translation.

As a programmer, I'm sometimes dealing with complexities and abstractions that are hard to understand for "normal" people and managers . I find it difficult to meet on common ground. Something that is obvious to me, is incomprehensible to them or the other way around. But in general, people are not interested to know the complexities of my work. They just want to have something done and what that something is, is something for me to find out. Quite often I have to deal with fuzzy requirements. By asking open questions, I have to figure out what they actually mean and how they have to be implemented. Bad luck, if your company has outsourced IT, because these fuzzy requirements will be taken literally by a code-monkey somewhere in Asia.

[Melmoth]

Do you ever find that human language isn't suited to discussing complex subjects? Or is the issue more the inability of the interlocutors to use language accurately?

Language is definitely inadequate when it's literal. Things like sarcasm, irony, exaggeration, metaphor, synecdoche etc. are much more effective for communicating complex ideas and mixtures of emotion quickly. The difference between literal and figurative uses of language is the difference between understanding and empathy.

I've heard a call for sarcasm font. People say it jokingly, but I think it's actually a good idea! It would be a handy convention on the interwebs.

What if you're not sure yourself whether you're being sarcastic or not? I'd say, if in doubt, assume the answers yes. If you weren't being at least a little sarcastic, you wouldn't be feeling ambiguous. Same applies to interpreting other people's sarcasm, to my mind: yes they are being sarcastic, always, because if they weren't they'd have made it clearer.

[penfold]

Having been on lots of forums for a long time I consistently see discussions degenerate into semantic arguments i.e. 'This word means that! No it doesn't! You don't understand me! Yes I do! But you said... etc etc' This often happens when discussions get really deep.

Do you ever find that human language isn't suited to discussing complex subjects? Or is the issue more the inability of the interlocutors to use language accurately?

I think for most areas of human discourse our language is fine. However there are some topics where language does start to break into pieces.

For example, trying to discuss "Being"; the trouble is that to ask a question like "what is Being?" seems inherently circular (as the "is" presupposes a definition of Being!); it may be that "Being" is simply a topic we cannot talk about intelligibly.

Perhaps the most disquieting area of linguistic limitations is for physics. As things stand we have no particularly compelling reason to think that our language of mathematics is sufficient to describe the full complexity of the universe. It may be that we find our reliance on language ultimately makes a full understanding of the universe impossible!

The limits of language is certainly something that has engaged philosophers over the years. Wittgenstein famously ends his Tractatus with the words: "that of which we cannot speak let us pass over in silence."

[Asmodean]

Imagine trying to explain a fourth dimension of space (Which is not time) to someone.

How does it "look"? Or "feel"? what is it made of?

Our language is limited by what we can experience. We have few words to describe things outside of our microverse, with the occasional exception of some abstract philosophical constructs.

So, a short answer to your question is no. A long answer... Well, that depends on the complexity of the "complex subject".

[pytheas]

if it isn't then the human brain is not fit for purpose when dealing with complex subjects.

there is an immense amount of data transferred visually ( and smell ...) that is not verbal and is simply absent in  computer discussions

I believe that, nevertheless, enough remains that is capable to stir through the hardest most complex conceptions to date.

It is the simple emotion-feel-being data that are most easily missed.

You cannot plan as you must to use emoticons and changed fonts. The process gets sidetracked into logic. you pause feeling and execute logically


dimentions would be explained with physics-maths, i may not understand them but they are adequately explained.

the english language is versatile and can get extremely dense. personal vocabulary and competence cannot be used to rate a language.

human language evolved because we breath complexity, it is the only fit thing available

[Hector Valdez]

The fault lies not in the English language itself, but in the ability of it's speakers to be acceptably specific with their words when communicating things that listeners, perhaps lacking the same point of reference, might misunderstand without the required elaboration, an aspect of communication that is further restricted and, perhaps devolved, through the stripping of context brought about by the internet mandating the use of textual communication as the modus operandi of socialization online, but which can be rectified through the use of clarifying vocabulary beforehand, an act that is fast becoming increasingly necessary, and increasingly difficult, due to the rapidly changing points of reference held by quickly diverging cultures all over the world, to which the only reasonable answer dictates that we improve our cognitive abilities to a magnitude that will enable us to understand each other once more.

In short: Step up your vocab, you bunch of pansies.