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 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.
Ye well we have the redefining humpty dumpty super persons.
I hope Davin hasn't been discouraged by recent rebuffs.
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.
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.
Quote from: Crow on March 05, 2012, 04:52:18 PM
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.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 05, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
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
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 05, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 05, 2012, 04:52:18 PM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2012, 01:15:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 05, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 05, 2012, 04:52:18 PM
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.
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 ;D. 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.
Quote from: TankDo 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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxI'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.
Quote from: Tank on March 05, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
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."
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".
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
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.
Quote from: The Semaestro on March 25, 2012, 05:56:20 AM
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.
QuoteIn short: Step up your vocab, you bunch of pansies.
I left that in just because I like it.
Quote from: The Semaestro on March 25, 2012, 05:56:20 AM
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.
You're not exactly opposing what I said there, stevil. I would say you are quite in agreement with it. ;)
Quote from: Tank on March 05, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on April 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 05, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
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.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 18, 2012, 12:35:34 AM
Quote from: En_Route on April 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 05, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
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.