|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2018 1:37:39 GMT
How many meanings can a banana have? How many meanings can individual persons assign to the object? There's no way to count that, since no one can share the meanings they assign, but, even with nominalistic concerns aside, surely any object, such as a banana, could have potentially billions and billions of meanings. Whateva! That is what language is for and most of us do OK, communicating. Like here. You are right. The human brain is limitless yet communication can only be a good thing to strive for. You bore me with your pedantry.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 27, 2018 1:41:51 GMT
How many meanings can individual persons assign to the object? There's no way to count that, since no one can share the meanings they assign, but, even with nominalistic concerns aside, surely any object, such as a banana, could have potentially billions and billions of meanings. Whateva! That is what language is for and most of us do OK, communicating. Like here. You are right. The human brain is limitless yet communication can only be a good thing to strive for. You bore me with your pedantry. It should be pretty obvious that my view doesn't posit something like "People can't communicate." It's just that both ontologically and epistemologically, we believe that different things are going on when it comes to communication. Re being bored, do you read much contemporary analytic philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2018 2:01:50 GMT
Whateva! That is what language is for and most of us do OK, communicating. Like here. You are right. The human brain is limitless yet communication can only be a good thing to strive for. You bore me with your pedantry. It should be pretty obvious that my view doesn't posit something like "People can't communicate." It's just that both ontologically and epistemologically, we believe that different things are going on when it comes to communication. Re being bored, do you read much contemporary analytic philosophy? No, and have you read much anthropological sociology, phsychology and linquistics? Have you first hand observed 11 children learning language and taught them?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 27, 2018 2:19:03 GMT
It should be pretty obvious that my view doesn't posit something like "People can't communicate." It's just that both ontologically and epistemologically, we believe that different things are going on when it comes to communication. Re being bored, do you read much contemporary analytic philosophy? No, and have you read much anthropological sociology, phsychology and linquistics? Have you first hand observed 11 children learning language and taught them? Re reading, yes, a fair amount, and I had classes in all of them. Re teaching kids language, no. I've taught some, but re kids younger than university age, I've only taught music.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 16:44:32 GMT
Speech is very causal. That's why we have laws preventing certain things. Free will is a non-issue when there's a stampeding mob running people over. We can't will ourselves out of being crushed. I disagree that it's causal (obviously, since I had just said as much), and there's an easy way to show that speech is not causal. Put me in a situation where someone utters something that you believe would cause panic and a stampede, then watch my reaction. (Of course, I'm not the only test subject who would not have the reaction you'd be predicting, but I'm one test subject who would not. Any test subject who wouldn't have the predicted reaction would falsify the hypothesis that speech is causal to the behavior in question.) All three branches of government say otherwise. As do actual sociologists and psychologists.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 27, 2018 17:10:32 GMT
I disagree that it's causal (obviously, since I had just said as much), and there's an easy way to show that speech is not causal. Put me in a situation where someone utters something that you believe would cause panic and a stampede, then watch my reaction. (Of course, I'm not the only test subject who would not have the reaction you'd be predicting, but I'm one test subject who would not. Any test subject who wouldn't have the predicted reaction would falsify the hypothesis that speech is causal to the behavior in question.) All three branches of government say otherwise. As do actual sociologists and psychologists. You know that arguments from authority and argumentum ad populums are fallacious, right? At any rate, what fields are relevant for expertise on causality? Physics and ontology (a philosophy branch), no?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 17:35:41 GMT
All three branches of government say otherwise. As do actual sociologists and psychologists. You know that arguments from authority and argumentum ad populums are fallacious, right? At any rate, what fields are relevant for expertise on causality? Physics and ontology (a philosophy branch), no? Not when it comes to public safety. I'll err on the side of experts, just as I would with medicine and rocket science. No free speech is worth more than someone else's life. You can risk your own, but not somebody else's.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 27, 2018 17:43:38 GMT
You know that arguments from authority and argumentum ad populums are fallacious, right? At any rate, what fields are relevant for expertise on causality? Physics and ontology (a philosophy branch), no? Not when it comes to public safety. I'll err on the side of experts, just as I would with medicine and rocket science. No free speech is worth more than someone else's life. You can risk your own, but not somebody else's. Why wouldn't you err on the side of experts when it comes to causality? Anyway, if you can't argue in favor of speech being causal and you want to just defer to conventional wisdom, okay. I'm an expert on causality (on the ontology end, at least), and I disagree that speech is causal. I'll trust my own views there, at least in lieu of a good argument/good empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 18:09:58 GMT
Not when it comes to public safety. I'll err on the side of experts, just as I would with medicine and rocket science. No free speech is worth more than someone else's life. You can risk your own, but not somebody else's. Why wouldn't you err on the side of experts when it comes to causality? Anyway, if you can't argue in favor of speech being causal and you want to just defer to conventional wisdom, okay. I'm an expert on causality (on the ontology end, at least), and I disagree that speech is causal. I'll trust my own views there, at least in lieu of a good argument/good empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. The evidence resides in people who have been crushed in stampeding, panicked crowds. Public safety officials know speech is causal. That's why there are laws limiting certain speech. The joy you get out of shouting "Fire" does not trump someone's right to not be killed in a stampede.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 27, 2018 18:23:48 GMT
Why wouldn't you err on the side of experts when it comes to causality? Anyway, if you can't argue in favor of speech being causal and you want to just defer to conventional wisdom, okay. I'm an expert on causality (on the ontology end, at least), and I disagree that speech is causal. I'll trust my own views there, at least in lieu of a good argument/good empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. The evidence resides in people who have been crushed in stampeding, panicked crowds. That doesn't work, because under my account, where there have been people crushed in stampeding, panicked crowds, speech isn't causal. What you're doing here is the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. No, they don't, because "speech is causal" is false. Furthermore, public safety officials are not experts in causality in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 18:28:24 GMT
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
As I said, experts with decades of data have already determined speech to be causal.
Speech is not worth endangering others' lives. You don't get to have that.
|
|