G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) (06/11/91)
c.s.hutchison@kingston.ac.uk writes >> re: Steven Smoliar> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION >> >> I missed earlier messages, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I'm >> starting work in the area of descriptions and truth. Basically, the problem >> is this: given four descriptions of the same event (in this case, events >> which took place on 2nd June 1975 on the outskirts of what was then Salisbury, >> Southern Rhodesia) -- >> >> "Rioting blacks shot dead as ANC leaders meet" (Times of London) >> "Police shoot 11 dead in Salisbury riot" (Manchester Guardian) >> "Rebels kill 11 ANC men" (Times of Zambia) >> "Racists murder Zimbabweans" (Tanzanian Daily News) >> >> each report is either true (corresponds to a state of affairs in the world) or >> false (does not correspond). By virtue of the meanings of the words in the >> sentences, they cannot all be true at the same time. Yet they all report the >> 'same' events. My hunch is to say that the physical circumstances under- >> determine possible linguistic descriptions, enabling various ideological >> interpretations of the events. What then do readers 'know' about the events? >> How is knowledge in this sense distinct from mere belief? >> >> Any thoughts? The perception of reality by the (politically) Left & the Right, the rich & the poor and the First World & the Third World (and East & West), is a rich set of dichotomies. Two opposing political parties always seem to produce "facts" that show that they are "correct". I hope that Adrain Redgers does not mind me quoting him (from the AI-Digest). << Date: 10 Mar 88 20:26:58 GMT << From: Adrian G C Redgers <mcvax!ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk!agcr@uunet.UU.NET> << Reply-to: Adrian G C Redgers <mcvax!doc.ic.ac.uk!agcr@uunet.UU.NET> << Subject: ...visit to the Chinese Room - some implications << [...] << b) Last night (Wednesday March 9th) BBC1 showed 'Girls on Top' with French & << Saunders and Ruby Wax. In it 'Saunders' acts as a jobber waving her arms around << and making money in a share dealing room. After rising to dizzy heights of << profit she 'crashes'. It transpires that she had no idea what her symbols meant << to other dealers - she thought she was making a butterfly and then a bird.... << The moral of the story is that 'meaning' or the 'real world' will always outwit << (symbol manipulation) systems. I think Aristotle would disagree - but I don't. Am I making myself clear? :-) ____ Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716 Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT Drop a utensil.
pottera@infonode.ingr.com (Andrew Potter) (06/13/91)
G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes: >c.s.hutchison@kingston.ac.uk writes >>> re: Steven Smoliar> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION >>> >>> I missed earlier messages, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I'm >>> starting work in the area of descriptions and truth. Basically, the problem >>> is this: given four descriptions of the same event (in this case, events >>> which took place on 2nd June 1975 on the outskirts of what was then Salisbury, >>> Southern Rhodesia) -- >>> >>> "Rioting blacks shot dead as ANC leaders meet" (Times of London) >>> "Police shoot 11 dead in Salisbury riot" (Manchester Guardian) >>> "Rebels kill 11 ANC men" (Times of Zambia) >>> "Racists murder Zimbabweans" (Tanzanian Daily News) >>> >>> each report is either true (corresponds to a state of affairs in the world) or >>> false (does not correspond). By virtue of the meanings of the words in the >>> sentences, they cannot all be true at the same time. Yet they all report the >>> 'same' events. My hunch is to say that the physical circumstances under- >>> determine possible linguistic descriptions, enabling various ideological >>> interpretations of the events. What then do readers 'know' about the events? >>> How is knowledge in this sense distinct from mere belief? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >The perception of reality by the (politically) Left & the Right, the >rich & the poor and the First World & the Third World (and East & >West), is a rich set of dichotomies. Two opposing political parties >always seem to produce "facts" that show that they are "correct". To take a more analytical approach, it would seem the various statements could be decomposed into their various component statements. That is to say, a connotation is an implication, i.e. an implicit statement, and therefore each component is subject to its own truth value. "Rebels kill 11 ANC men" (Times of Zambia) 11 people were killed They were men They were members of the ANC The killers were rebels etc. The point being you cannot assess the truth value of a statement until you have analyzed it. But that's where it begins to get interesting. In the above example, I interpreted "ANC men" to mean "members of the ANC," whereas someone else might interpret it less strictly, e.g. as "ANC sympathizers" or "fellow-travelers." Because there is this room for interpretation, the headline may really conceal more information than it conveys. >I hope that Adrain Redgers does not mind me quoting him (from the >AI-Digest). ><< Date: 10 Mar 88 20:26:58 GMT ><< From: Adrian G C Redgers <mcvax!ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk!agcr@uunet.UU.NET> ><< Reply-to: Adrian G C Redgers <mcvax!doc.ic.ac.uk!agcr@uunet.UU.NET> ><< Subject: ...visit to the Chinese Room - some implications ><< [...] ><< b) Last night (Wednesday March 9th) BBC1 showed 'Girls on Top' with French & ><< Saunders and Ruby Wax. In it 'Saunders' acts as a jobber waving her arms around ><< and making money in a share dealing room. After rising to dizzy heights of ><< profit she 'crashes'. It transpires that she had no idea what her symbols meant ><< to other dealers - she thought she was making a butterfly and then a bird.... ><< The moral of the story is that 'meaning' or the 'real world' will always outwit ><< (symbol manipulation) systems. I think Aristotle would disagree - but I don't. >Am I making myself clear? :-) >____ >Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716 >Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly >Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT > Drop a utensil. -- Andrew Potter | "t-crosser Intergraph Corp 205-730-8673 | i-dotter" uunet!ingr!b23b!entropy!andrew | Dr. Seuss