Is human language fit for purpose when discussing complex subjects?

[BooksCatsEtc]

The fault lies not in the English language itself, but in the ability of it's speakers to be acceptably specific with their words . . .

Which falls to mush when people invent their own definitions for words.

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

I left that in just because I like it.

[Stevil]

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.

Words can carry so much baggage, double meanings, inferred meanings, as a by product of society language is constantly changing.
Different subcultures virtually have their own dictionary, that why it is so difficult for theists and atheists to debate, as we are arguing semantically different things.

It would be more concise and error free if we would simply adopt the binary language.

[Hector Valdez]

You're not exactly opposing what I said there, stevil. I would say you are quite in agreement with it. 

[En_Route]

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'm not sure what other medium is available for discussing complex subjects. It really boils down to a question of carefully defining one's terms and the ability to communicate our ideas in a coherent and structured manner(easier said than done). We do have a rich history of ideas which suggests that giving up on language is unnecessarily defeatist.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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'm not sure what other medium is available for discussing complex subjects. It really boils down to a question of carefully defining one's terms and the ability to communicate our ideas in a coherent and structured manner(easier said than done). We do have a rich history of ideas which suggests that giving up on language is unnecessarily defeatist.

I don't think giving up on language is necessary. I think that acknowledging its inherent limitations is, though. And I do think there will always be limitations on language, no matter how carefully we try to set the standards. The context for standardizing language is the world around us and that's always changing. Keeping a permanent, static structure for language is impossible, in my opinion.

For example, certain industries go to great lengths to standardize language usage for manuals and communications ( Aerospace has the Air Transport Associations iSpec2200, for instance), and they still can't achieve this perfectly. And that's within a very small, specific parameter with very intelligent, highly trained people. I think language is just too inherently fluid and subjective.   

[En_Route]

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'm not sure what other medium is available for discussing complex subjects. It really boils down to a question of carefully defining one's terms and the ability to communicate our ideas in a coherent and structured manner(easier said than done). We do have a rich history of ideas which suggests that giving up on language is unnecessarily defeatist.

I don't think giving up on language is necessary. I think that acknowledging its inherent limitations is, though. And I do think there will always be limitations on language, no matter how carefully we try to set the standards. The context for standardizing language is the world around us and that's always changing. Keeping a permanent, static structure for language is impossible, in my opinion.

For example, certain industries go to great lengths to standardize language usage for manuals and communications ( Aerospace has the Air Transport Associations iSpec2200, for instance), and they still can't achieve this perfectly. And that's within a very small, specific parameter with very intelligent, highly trained people. I think language is just too inherently fluid and subjective.   

I agree language does not stand still, partly because the world changes, partly because the way we perceive the world changes too and partly because of the dynamic nature of language itself. I don't know that this necessarily represents any insuperable barrier to the communication of ideas. Subjectivity is a different ball-game- I would have thought that words are capable of carrying shared significations, although there is always room for misunderstanding due to differences in shades of meaning which can only be avoided by precision and elucidation.