Why We Need To Try To Write with Some Level of Precision
Often, the problem we have in conversing with one another productively about the important issues of the day is equivocation in its formal sense, i.e., the fallacy that arises when we use words that have two different definitions, and then conflate those meanings. The example I remember from my intro to logic course is: “Good steaks are rare these days, so be sure not to get yours over-cooked.”
I was reminded of this in a piece I just read in which the author remarks, “The chemical engineer told me he hates hearing about “organic” food because all food is “organic,” insofar as that word is used in organic chemistry.” Yes, chemical pesticides are often organic chemicals, but the use of “organic” to describe food simply means something else entirely. An aircraft pilot who flies a “plane” should not get upset when people talk about plane geometry.
Perhaps this is a cautionary tale for us at 2GreenEnergy, i.e., let’s try not to take one another’s statements out of context. That’s been known to happen here once in a while. 🙂
“Precision” is a reason that I tend to put much more “faith” in listening than in “talking.” Expressing ideas is a bit like letting go of a helium balloon. You can prepare it and and let it go with the greatest of accuracy but once you release it there are forces that will also steer its destination. Listening however is again somewhat under your personal control. You can choose to gloss over details or listen carefully, even intuitively where meaning is not clear, if you have that capacity.
Beyond this there is also something I learned in school. For years I had kept a private file. It was sort of a “diary” of private philosophical musings, and clues to foundational laws governing our world. I pompously titled it “The meaning of life.” As so many have tried to do I was trying to use “Reason” to explain the universe. (“Don’t try this at home” as you are in danger of being considered rather boring by your peers.)
But along came a private conversation with a political science prof that resulted in one of those life shattering events. He casually remarked, “If you ever want to win an argument simply question the terms.” From this I understood that everything we consider “understanding,” “communication,” “science” or “knowledge” is based on accepting some “primi facia” knowledge.
If “reason” is only able to build on such a foundation of sand it is no ultimate and final arbiter of truth. This was not to conclude “Reason” was useless, only limited and additional methods may also have value.
So you write about a cautionary tale. Within a specific sphere accurate words certainly have great value. But it is the poets and literary authors who will sometimes intentionally use conflated meanings to remind us that “Reason” has its limits.
We seem to be somewhat intent upon building a society that is good for reason and robots. If we want a society that is good for people we may have to expand our definition of what people need.
The very intelligent and entirely rational CEO of a large corporation will apply his reason to the bottom line and realize that he can follow all existing laws and even corporate responsibility and send his manufacturing emissions into the environment where in so many years they may build up. Or they may not…
It is not “Reason” that will prevent that CEO from following their responsibility to stockholders but things like “Heart, compassion, responsibility to humanity, that go slightly beyond and sometimes guide reason. Environmentalism is a wonderful and necessary thing, but we are trying to squeeze it into an old paradigm based exclusively on Reason. It will continue to fail until enough people change in their outlook and way of thinking.
Unfortunately you can’t say this to most people because it will tend to do the same thing it did to a once college senior and seem to shatter their whole world. If you show someone that there is a different way to view the world they tend to reject it as too foreign, too radical, and they are too committed to their present pathways.
Perhaps it is a logical paradox but if you feel the need to “save yourself” it is easy to ignore all of this. But if you mean to truly listen, for yourself, then you might slightly enlarge a perspective. And that is what learning usually does for us.