Re: live meaning and dead languages

On Feb 6, 2009, at 1:34 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
> One of the occasional defects of people in SW is a tendency to arm  
> chair philosophizing.
>
> I will indulge.

Philosophizing is OK, but some examples might clarify things (or at  
least indicate how I've missed the point!).  I will indulge.

>
>
> A term which is too tightly nailed down in its relationship to other  
> terms has been dug into an early grave. Having fixed its meaning, as  
> our world moves on, the term will become useless.
>
> The trick, in natural language, is that the meaning of terms is  
> somewhat loose, and moves with the times, while still having some  
> limits.
> This looseness of definition gives rise to some misunderstandings  
> (aka interoperability failures), but not too many, we hope.
>
> So I wonder, as some people try to describe some part of their world  
> with great precision, using the latest and greatest formal  
> techniques, just how long that way of describing the world will  
> last. Maybe there is a role in such precision in allowing us to be  
> clear about differences of opinion --- but it doesn't seem to me to  
> be a good foundation for building knowledge.
>

One thing that needs clarification here, it seems to me, is what is  
meant exactly by "term" in the SW (maybe that's an illustration  
itself!), particularly when comparing it with natural language.  The  
meaning of terms may "move with the times", but when a term has been  
used in a specific context, I want to know what the term meant in that  
context (which may be a temporal context, or some other kind).  Take  
the term "torpedo", for example.  At one time, it meant a particular  
kind of electric fish.  Later, it became used to also refer to various  
kinds of explosive devices (e.g., naval mines, as in "damn the  
torpedos, full speed ahead", and railroad signals).  Today, you  
usually think of a self-propelled naval weapon, but the fishes are  
still "torpedos", and the use of the term to refer to a naval mine is  
obsolete (but would be relevant in, say, discussing the American Civil  
War).  So is this acquisition (and de-acquisition) of other meanings  
an example of the meaning of a term "moving with the times" as you  
describe it?  Or do I really have, so-to-speak, several terms "with  
the same name" (torpedo).  If the latter, the distinct "terms" seem to  
have fairly exact and reasonably unchanging meanings (even though the  
"same name" can cause confusion).  I'm sure there's some linguistic  
vocabulary to describe this stuff.  The point is, I'm not sure I want  
"looseness of definition";  what I want is some kind of flexible  
versioning mechanism.

--Frank

Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 16:36:20 UTC