Topic: do words have objectively valid meanings? (Read 737 times)

First, we have to figure out what you mean by "proof."  Without defining proof, let's agree that unless we agree on the premises (the "givens," the axiomatic assumptions), we're not going anywhere.  What you're asking me to do is to address those very things -- the "givens" we need to have in place before any "logical" discussion can take place.  The disagreement here is not how strict the definition is, but that different people have different definitions (one of your guys claims one meter is about three feet, the other defines it as six).  
This case is simple -- the two guys can go to the weights & measures committee, a really dull agency that exists *to set standards* & settle exactly this type of dispute.  So in this case there's clear right & wrong.  There'll be cases in which there's no universal standard to appeal to, though it doesn't mean that human language is intrinsically vague, just that cases exist where no strict definitions or standards seemed needed.  Something like that.


As i said, in many cases it's not necessary.  If Porsche wants to call its red "signal orange," i'm not going to form a color committee to prove them wrong.  When human language *does* become potentially vague, stricter formal languages emerge -- from legalese & other technical jargon to programming languages.  

Hope that helps.  

yes i see what you are saying but then how do you address this question.

say that i personally chose to define a meter is what most people would consider to be two meters. can you prove that what this is in any sense objectively incorrect? if so than please do. if not than i think we have to accept that there is no objectively correct meaning for any words.

with that being said we would be wise to conform to some standards because otherwise words lose their usefulness as tools for communication.

Hi.
The problem here is with your definition of "objectively valid."  Think of a word as a variable mapping to a set.  X, for instance, is "all things that are potato chips," while Y = "all things that are hashbrowns."  Both X & Y represent *sets*, which may or may not overlap.  Since the sets overlap, there will be potato-stuff  values which will belong to both sets, in other words be both a potato chip & a hashbrown.

Does that make sense?

Edit: Maybe this is clearer:

This is where things go astray.  You assume that "potato chips" & "hashbrowns" are mutually exclusive -- something is EITHER a potato chip OR a hashbrown -- EXCLUSIVE OR.  "Potato-stuff" can be both a hashbrown & potato chip at the same time, with both terms strictly defined (i think that's what you mean by "objective").  Another example is red & yellow:  At what point does red become yellow, and wtf is orange?  If we define colors in RGB, there's no question that the definition is rigid: pure red = 255,0,0, pure yellow is 255,255,0 -- any color in the RGB color field maps to one, and only one number set (or hex number, if you're a coder: red=ff 00 00, yellow=ff ff 00).  The word "red" is a reference to a set of colors having non-zero value R (of RGB), while "yellow" maps to all colors with both R and B having non-zero values. 

TL;DR:  Some words are strictly defined & map to sets, sets which may have members in common.

bump

He's a good guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE

ill look into it thanks! but now im going to bed so gnight guys i hope to continue this tomorrow. hopefully by then myrkul can chime in, i always appreciate his cynicism.

Steven Pinker comes to mind.

still then we have the question of what i say that i believe a meter is what most people would consider to be two meters. why am i wrong in some objectively valid sense? saying "because everyone other than you agrees that you are wrong" would be a fallacious argument right, even if everyone in the world believes that the world is flat that doesnt make it so. So you would need to come up with something other than that. But what else could you say?

I think so. It's like saying something is "big" versus saying something is "one meter long". A meter is measurable while something "big" is relative and can have different meanings between people and situations.

REPLY FROM nomencIature1 who doesnt feel like working his way out of newbie jail (and i dont blame him):

You find an ancient tablet with unknown hieroglyphics written on it. Does any level of your subjective interpretation of the meaning of a certain glyph alter the objective meaning of the glyph within the context of the tablet?

so than maybe the solution lies in the fact that some words have objectively valid meanings and some don't. So like the the word "seven" is an example of the former and "love" is an example of the latter.

but then that would mean if i said this --- is four dashes you would need to be able to prove that i was incorrect with out relying on any sort of fallacy and the only sort of argument i could think of to say that i am wrong is an argumentum ad populum. It seems to me even here the simplest solution is to say that i can call anything i like anything i like and i wont be "wrong" in any objective sense, even though there exists an objectively valid idea that is four, because words arnt the actual concepts themselves but representations of concepts.

fuck me i hate epistemology, im not smart enough for it.

I think this would fall into the category of Sorites paradox. You can cut away slices of the hash brown and at some point call it a chip, but who's to say at what point? Maybe you can find an answer for this example (perhaps the inventor of the chip had dimensional restrictions in mind), but that skews away from the argument. As long as you're using non-specific words, it's all relative.

So i was having a discussion (using this word liberally) with someone on youtube called nomencIature1 who apparently believes i did such a poor job arguing that words do not have objectively valid meanings that he is going to make a youtube video about our discussion for the expressed purpose of "proving how stupid libertarians are".

anyway my argument went something like this, and this is going to be a bit abstract so try to bear with me. First we accept the following premises. 1) all words have objectively valid meanings 2) there exists a thing called a potato chip 3) there exists a thing called a hash brown 4) the difference between a hash brown and a potato chip is that the hash brown is thicker than the potato chip. Ok so then it should follow logically from these premises that as we gradually increase the size of a potato chip there should necessarily be a correct answer to the question of precisely when does the potato chip cease to be a potato chip and instead becomes a hash brown. So for example say the answer is 3.281740284 millimeters and if that is in fact the correct number that is the threshold than any claim that any number other than that number is the threshold is necessarily and objectively false.

I think we can all realize that this is a ridiculous conclusion so the big question is does this conclusion actually follow from the premises, because if it does than i think we can confidently assert that at least one of these premises is false and im pretty sure that if one of these premises is false than it has to be the first one.

anyway here is the video that we had our comment wars on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN1kEKsHo_k check it out and tell me what you think.