I just wanted to bring out a few of the thoughts that I had after the class discussion today. The first has to do with the point we just left off on, the dictionary. Now, as stated, everyone has their different definitions of things and when in an argument, tries to get their opponent to agree with their definition. However, the dictionary is a piece of work that pretty much everyone refers to. Therefore, don't we all have the same definition of words at some point, at some level of the ladder of abstraction (even though it may be really high up there)?
Another point I wanted to bring up was the verifiability of reports. In class, we came up with a good number of reports that were based off of other reports, that don't tell all the details or facts, and that are really there to entertain us. Well, on my way home from practice, I saw all this huge traffic jam on route 38, and I thought, "What about traffic reports?" I admit that traffic reports usually don't exist, unless within another sort of media, but aren't they verifiable? I mean, you can just go to the spot yourself and just see it. Also, most people are probably going to think the same thing no matter whatever position they are in: "There are a lot of cars. It's going take a while for those cars to get through."
Thoughts?
(Mary Quien)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Recall that Hayakawa stated that a dictionary is useful when extracting the informational defintions of a world, only. The informative connotations are innate, based on our extensional/intensional maps and experiences.
Traffic reports are verifiable. But you must understand that they are part of the world's dynamic processes. By the time you hear the report and spend energy transporting yourself to the site, the report may be in need of alteration and/or modification. Nothing is ever static.
(Sam Maliha)
Although it is probably evident to everyone in a traffic jam that it will take them a while to procede through the traffic, there are still several points of view. For example, if someone in the jam is in a hurry to get somewhere, their view of the traffic may be more intense than someone taking a leisurely drive home from work.
Also, there could still be a certain sense of entertainment from traffic reports, as ridiculous as that sounds. It is extremely easy for reporters to exaggerate the intensity of the traffic jam, which, in my opinion, is actually somewhat amusing. If I'm at home watching the news and a traffic report comes on, I want to hear about major delays, backed up for miles and miles, rather than a minor back-up on a less-frequently traveled road. I empathize with the people in those immense jams...but maybe I'm the only one. Either way, you can never know the exact intensity of the traffic jam at any given moment unless you are there for yourself due to the media's tendency to exaggerate for the purpose of entertainment.
(Paige Schlesinger)
I agree with Sam in her assessment of the dictionary. Hayakawa mentioned in Chapter 4 that we cannot be bound by the dictionary, only guided by it. After all, there are no "true meanings" of words: only contexts, and we all have different mental contexts and mindsets due to our different intensional worlds.
Traffic reports are technically verifiable. However, so are many other pieces of news that the media presents to us. If we read that riots are occurring in New York, technically we could fly over to New York and observe them for ourselves. However, it would be highly impractical to personally check every piece.
We simply assume that the traffic reports are correct, and assume that news reporters are generally trying to tell us the truth. But since the news media is in the business of entertainment, sometimes our assumptions need to be modified and we need to be more skeptical and careful. In the case of traffic reports, however, we can usually safely assume that the broadcasters are being honest.
(Eric Wei)
I agree with Sam and Eric's interpretation of the dictionary as a mere tool that helps us understand the informational definitions of a world, rather than a book that we must be bound by. In Hayakawa's words, the writing of a dictionary is "a task of recording what words have meant to authors in the past, not setting authoritative statements." I particularly agree with Eric's note of the existence of contexts rather than "true" meanings. Most importantly, recall the "one word, one meaning" fallacy from Chapter 4 of LITAA. As Hayakawa states, "no word ever has the same meaning twice," which is why we must use verbal and physical contexts to determine the meaning of a word. This statement explains why the dictionary is simply a tool that is available to us rather than a set of definitions that we all must accept and apply to every single word that we read. Moreover, it leads me to believe that the answer to Mary's first question ("Don't we all have the same definition of words at some point?") is no. Think about this: what exactly is meant by the word "definition"? Isn't a "definition" subject to the contexts that are associated with the word being defined and to the denotations and connotations suggested by the reader? As Sam stated, the informative connotations of a word are based on our personal maps and experiences. Thus, isn't it virtually impossible for everyone to have "the same definition of words", no matter what level of abstraction we are at?
Perhaps I am interpreting Mary's question differently than what she meant to ask. If so, an explanation of the question would surely suffice! Any further thoughts and clarifications are welcome.
Now on to Mary's second point regarding traffic reports. I agree with everyone that a traffic report is technically verifiable, though it would clearly be illogical and impractical to go see a traffic jam for yourself. I also agree with Paige's belief that a traffic report could still be a form of entertainment, in other words, something the media is trying to sell. However, I do have a question regarding Eric's last comment ("we can usually safely assume that the broadcasters are being honest."). The question is simply, how do you know? How do we know where we should draw the line between verifiability and the necessity to assume/believe in honesty? ...Actually, I'm not sure if this question makes sense. Perhaps it is too irrelevant. But whether I am making sense or not, I'd greatly appreciate further thoughts from anyone, as I think anything could help clear my mind of confusion.
(Janet Lee)
Concerning Janet's question. It can be safe to assume that certain languages are more "trustworthy" than others due to relative universality (is that a word?).
For example, in the common base ten system, pure mathematical calculations will usually yield the same verifiable results that have contexts in reality that stabilize any possibility of numbers, being symbols, having inaccuracies. 1+1 used to be, is and always will be equal to 2. The last statement concerning the future may not be absolutely true but, like a limit in math, it's close enough to be just a good as true.
This relates back to Sam's previous question on tenses "mattering" in the classification of claims. Tense matters for some examples, but not all. Similarly, we need to trust some reports but not all, in order to stay happy, sane human beings.
Grace Yuan
We'll i pretty much agree with everyone else, but I think about dictionaries slightly differently. All dictionaries are, as Hayakawa tells us, are a collection of words and meanings based on the context the words are used in. Even in the dictionary, each word has several meanings so right away its easy to recognize that there is no one definition to anything.
Still, the words you use in everyday life you may very rarely know the "dictionary" definition of. The way we use words, we always have a different personal definition with which we feel comftorable. For example, if I said it was pouring outside, someone else may disagree and say it is only gently raining. Although we both know it to be raining, and we may see similar amounts of rain, the context based on our own experiences make us view the same event differently. In this case, its all relative. Compared to a hurricane it is drizziling outside, but compared to a cloudy day with light showers, it is comparitively pouring.
(Kevin Trainer)
Post a Comment