Lingusitics How does language shape our understanding of truth?

[Deveno]

Think a bit about this, before you answer...

Here are some of my musings on the subject:

Language, or almost any other means of communication, is a means of mapping our internal experience externally. Our internal experience (which includes, but is not limited to, our sensory data, our feelings, thoughts, our dreams and physical actions) is robust, varied and complex, and is likely impossible to fully communicate.

So, as is the case with many maps, language is not fully faithful. We include what we feel are the important features of our internal experience, and omit others. In the language of data transmission, language is simultaneously encryption AND compression.

For example, I might say: "My shirt is green" (in point of fact, I DO have a green shirt on at this moment). But what do I mean? Emerald? Kelly green? Fluorescent lime? I think we would all like to believe that since my shirt is, in fact, green, that what I am saying is an example of a true statement. Some possible ways of ascribing this value ('truth") to my statement:

Verifiablity (but this is not possible for blind people).
Falsifiability of the negation (but this is not possible for people with red-green color blindness, for example).
Consistency with repeated observation (but this seems to lead to the idea that truth doesn't exist UNTIL it is confirmed).
Logical deduction (perhaps coupled with wavelength analysis of light reflected off my shirt, and a suitable range given for "green"). This seems to rest on some "basic facts" which we can take as "axiomatically true". Which facts are these?

The more one thinks about this, the worse it gets...where can we even begin?

 

[lofgran]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on language and communication. I find this topic to be quite intriguing and complex.

You are absolutely right that language is a means of mapping our internal experience externally. It is a tool that we use to convey our thoughts, feelings, and experiences to others. But as you pointed out, it is not a perfect tool. It is limited by our own perceptions, biases, and understanding. This can lead to misunderstandings and miscommunications.

I agree that language is both encryption and compression. We use words to encode our thoughts and experiences, but in doing so, we also compress them. This can lead to ambiguity and multiple interpretations. Your example of the color green is a great illustration of this. Even though you said your shirt is green, there are still many possible shades and variations of green that could be perceived by others.

I appreciate your exploration of different ways to ascribe truth to a statement. Verifiability, falsifiability, consistency with repeated observation, and logical deduction are all valid approaches, but they also have their limitations. As scientists, we often rely on these methods to determine the truth, but we must also acknowledge that our knowledge and understanding are constantly evolving and subject to change.

In regards to your question about which facts can be considered "axiomatically true," I believe that this is a difficult question to answer definitively. Ultimately, it depends on our individual beliefs and perspectives. However, as scientists, we strive to base our knowledge and understanding on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

Thank you for prompting this discussion and for making us think critically about the complexities of language and truth. As scientists, it is important for us to constantly question and challenge our understanding of the world in order to continue advancing our knowledge and discoveries.