5 ms·

One approach to resolving this would be to not make statements that are literally not true and to correct statements that are literally not true to not be liter

One approach to resolving this would be to not make statements that are literally not true and to correct statements that are literally not true to not be literally not true.

hluska 11y ago
That creates bland writing and the process of correcting every little deviation is so pedantic that it provides a strong incentive to stop writing. Both of these problems result in a world where we learn less, grow less, and take fewer risks with our writing. What is wrong with truly being charitable, assuming the absolute best intentions and giving writers the license to deviate a little to let them make a point?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Nothing is wrong with being charitable. Some statements are just wrong, or there is no assumption of best intentions that can satisfy the claims being made. What is wrong with not writing blatantly false statements or calling out wrong statements for being wrong (or, asking for a correction)? There is a reason compilers cannot take arbitrary text and produce the program you are 'actually' thinking of.
  - khedoros 11y ago
    "Perfect is the enemy of good", perfection isn't always necessary for effective communication, and the perceived intent of the writer usually matters more. If you think the writer is trying to mislead someone, or they said something that you think will lead to misunderstandings of something important, then call them out or ask for a correction. I took the post as being more about "the writer didn't cover all the edge cases" than about "the writer wrote something intentionally false/wrong/misleading".
    - hluska 11y ago
      Very nicely written!! :)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      To be clear, I have not read the original post; I was only responding to WalterBright's post. We do get to skip over words and make up our own meanings of them, anyway. :)
WalterBright 11y ago
Consider the statement "People are smarter than dogs." This is not literally true, but is true in a very useful sense. Our language need not look like legal contracts, which are written to be literally true, and yet still they have ambiguity problems.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Walter maybe I am missing something here, but in what sense is the statement "people are smarter than dogs" not literally true?
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    Babies are not smarter than dogs, but they are certainly people. There are also people in vegetative states.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      In what way are dogs smarter than (or equivalent to) babies? What value is there in such a statement: This dog is at least as smart as this baby? What does smart even mean?
      - Avshalom 11y ago
        Well I mean okay it's not rocket science or anything but my schnauzer is a certified cosmetologist. What's your baby got?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > What does smart even mean? Precisely. That's why it's better to stick with the principle of charity :).
      - antimagic 11y ago
        Some dogs can be trained to herd sheep in a remarkably precise way, with just hand gestures and whistles to control them. There are plenty of people on this planet, born with mental defects, that would be incapable of learning to do this. Nevertheless, "People are smarter than dogs" is a usefully true statement, even whilst not being 100% correct. It certainly communicates the idea better than: "People, after having attained a certain level of mental development after birth, and not counting those born with mental defects or receiving cerebral injuries after birth, are smarter than most dogs, putting aside for the moment the possibility of a dog being born with a mutation allowing it to reason at a much higher level than is usually seen in the dog population". One version of that sentence concisely articulates the core idea. The other, whilst more correct, hides the core idea under a large number of sub-clauses trying to deal with unusual corner cases. To bring this back to the technical world, this debate is very similar to the way that programming language designers go to great lengths to try and help programmers right error handling code that doesn't get in the way of understanding the nominal case - it turns out that this is an exceptionally hard problem to solve though when dealing with computers because they are so precise. Thankfully human brains can be a lot more forgiving if we so desire (see the Principal of Charity mentioned previously in this thread).
niccaluim 11y ago
Sure. Come up with a bulletproof definition of truth and falsity in language and we'll get right on that. It's ok. We'll wait.
munificent 11y ago
A response like this is exactly what the article is about.

One approach to resolving this would be to not make statements that are literally not true and to correct statements that are literally not true to not be literally not true.

hluska 11y ago

That creates bland writing and the process of correcting every little deviation is so pedantic that it provides a strong incentive to stop writing. Both of these problems result in a world where we learn less, grow less, and take fewer risks with our writing. What is wrong with truly being charitable, assuming the absolute best intentions and giving writers the license to deviate a little to let them make a point?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Nothing is wrong with being charitable. Some statements are just wrong, or there is no assumption of best intentions that can satisfy the claims being made. What is wrong with not writing blatantly false statements or calling out wrong statements for being wrong (or, asking for a correction)? There is a reason compilers cannot take arbitrary text and produce the program you are 'actually' thinking of.
- khedoros 11y ago
  "Perfect is the enemy of good", perfection isn't always necessary for effective communication, and the perceived intent of the writer usually matters more. If you think the writer is trying to mislead someone, or they said something that you think will lead to misunderstandings of something important, then call them out or ask for a correction. I took the post as being more about "the writer didn't cover all the edge cases" than about "the writer wrote something intentionally false/wrong/misleading".
  - hluska 11y ago
    Very nicely written!! :)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    To be clear, I have not read the original post; I was only responding to WalterBright's post. We do get to skip over words and make up our own meanings of them, anyway. :)

WalterBright 11y ago

Consider the statement "People are smarter than dogs." This is not literally true, but is true in a very useful sense. Our language need not look like legal contracts, which are written to be literally true, and yet still they have ambiguity problems.

danieltillett 11y ago
Walter maybe I am missing something here, but in what sense is the statement "people are smarter than dogs" not literally true?
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Babies are not smarter than dogs, but they are certainly people. There are also people in vegetative states.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    In what way are dogs smarter than (or equivalent to) babies? What value is there in such a statement: This dog is at least as smart as this baby? What does smart even mean?
    - Avshalom 11y ago
      Well I mean okay it's not rocket science or anything but my schnauzer is a certified cosmetologist. What's your baby got?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > What does smart even mean? Precisely. That's why it's better to stick with the principle of charity :).
    - antimagic 11y ago
      Some dogs can be trained to herd sheep in a remarkably precise way, with just hand gestures and whistles to control them. There are plenty of people on this planet, born with mental defects, that would be incapable of learning to do this. Nevertheless, "People are smarter than dogs" is a usefully true statement, even whilst not being 100% correct. It certainly communicates the idea better than: "People, after having attained a certain level of mental development after birth, and not counting those born with mental defects or receiving cerebral injuries after birth, are smarter than most dogs, putting aside for the moment the possibility of a dog being born with a mutation allowing it to reason at a much higher level than is usually seen in the dog population". One version of that sentence concisely articulates the core idea. The other, whilst more correct, hides the core idea under a large number of sub-clauses trying to deal with unusual corner cases. To bring this back to the technical world, this debate is very similar to the way that programming language designers go to great lengths to try and help programmers right error handling code that doesn't get in the way of understanding the nominal case - it turns out that this is an exceptionally hard problem to solve though when dealing with computers because they are so precise. Thankfully human brains can be a lot more forgiving if we so desire (see the Principal of Charity mentioned previously in this thread).

niccaluim 11y ago

Sure. Come up with a bulletproof definition of truth and falsity in language and we'll get right on that. It's ok. We'll wait.

munificent 11y ago

A response like this is exactly what the article is about.