Basic logic V: Context

[Zhavric]

Context is everything in debate and there are many volconvo posters who aren't understanding it... or think it prevents us from proving things.

Let's start with a simple statement.

"I feel hot."

The context here (since it's written in present tense) means that all things that are described as Zhavric felt hot at 2:02pm on May 31st 2007 in Columbus, Ohio, USA. That is the only person the statement applies to.

"But Zhavric," some will say."Columbus, OH is really cold compared to Venus so really your statement doesn't make any sense."

Not so.

Adding or removing information changes the context. Different contexts equate to completely different statements.

"I feel hot" is not the same as stateing "I feel hot compared to Venus". The original context doesn't apply to Venus.

We cannot change the original context and claim it's the same context. This is very important. We see it clearly illustrated when people insult one another. We pay very close attention to what's said. For example...

Steve: "All women are dumb."

Amy: "WHAT!? How dare you say that?"

Steve: "Oh... uhm... I meant the women at the supermarket are dumb."

Amy: "That's not what you said! You said all women are dumb."

Steve attempts to amend his insulting context to something less insulting, but the damage is done. Amy refuses to believe his new statement should be equal to his old one.

There are still those who think shifting contexts poses a problem with proving things. It doesn't. We can freely examine claims and compare contexts to determine their soundness.

Discuss... without changing the context.

[nilan3000]

Zhav are you ever going to quit?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: nilan3000 Zhav are you ever going to quit?

lol Not with this many armchair agnostics running rampant.

[5010]

I don't have a problem with clarifying context. Roll with it.

[iclaudius]

Zhav, you're going to have to put a catalog of these "Basic Logic" threads on your signature or something.

[Fangrim]

Is this about the contexts thing in the other thread?

I'll admit I didn't really understand what you were referring to, and even thoug h I do now, I still don't see how that applied to our discussion.

But yeah, I agree to this thread's OP

[iclaudius]

Well, it's important to remember that "I'm hot" is a statement that describes one's state of being, not the physical conditions of/around the speaker. It's not measuring concrete measurable traits, but rather, the speaker's emotional reaction to the given conditions. I just wanted to clarify that, but otherwise, it's a good post.

[Jagged]

I'd have to agree, I really don't enjoy people playing the absolutist, ripping apart any practical point and rendering all further points...well pointless. However this call for an absence of absolutism sorta rides against basic logic (IV?): Nothing can be proven. A tad hypocritical, no?

[SoylentGreen]

Context isn't the only problem there, interpretation can change the meaning of your words to.
Zhavric feels hot could get a reply like
well take your jumper off
or
Yea I think your sexy to.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Jagged A tad hypocritical, no?

No. To say that is to switch context. Which is what we're talking about. The points are not compatible.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Jagged I'd have to agree, I really don't enjoy people playing the absolutist, ripping apart any practical point and rendering all further points...well pointless. However this call for an absence of absolutism sorta rides against basic logic (IV?): Nothing can be proven. A tad hypocritical, no?

What are you talking about?

Where on earth did you get the idea this is a call for the "absence of absolutism"? It's the opposite. This is about properly understanding absolute statements.

Every statement and assertion you made in your above quoted paragraph can be equated to a logical syllogism. Every statement we make is absolute. Stating "There are no absolutes" is no different from stating "nothing can be proven"/

[Zhavric]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Context isn't the only problem there, interpretation can change the meaning of your words to. Zhavric feels hot could get a reply like well take your jumper off or Yea I think your sexy to.

Nope. These do not pose problems at all. These are additional contexts or clarifications of the original contexts.

[SoylentGreen]

I agree with what your saying about context. But I see the problem arising from interpretation, i.e.
steve says "all women are dumb" meaning only those at the supermarket are dumb.
Thats his mistake in that he did not choose his words carefully enough and others interpreted the wrong meaning from them.
or
I think you sexy to.
Thats my mistake in that I chose to interpret your words in an incorrect manner while still being able to give an answer that I thought appropriate.

So that as you say context is everything, still its the interpretation others give to it is where the problem arises.
And considering that we are dealing with people from all over the world who differ in cultures and use of language, it becomes very difficult to get proper context, logical as it may be or not.
So we get debates that lead down dead end roads simply because the words used are misinterpreted .

PS I have read elsewhere how you always manage to turn these logic threads into an anti god debate, but I'm buggered if I can see how your going to do it with this one. :)

[Zhavric]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I agree with what your saying about context. But I see the problem arising from interpretation, i.e. steve says "all women are dumb" meaning only those at the supermarket are dumb. Thats his mistake in that he did not choose his words carefully enough and others interpreted the wrong meaning from them. or I think you sexy to. Thats my mistake in that I chose to interpret your words in an incorrect manner while still being able to give an answer that I thought appropriate.

Interpretation offers no such problem. We're simply talking about different contexts.

"all women are dumb, but that i mean the women in the supermarket" =/= "all women are dumb"

We aren't powerless to figure these things out, examine them and use logic to discern what is true from what is false.

The problem arises when a context is changed, yet someone insists it hasn't. This is a very basic logical problem that leads to a lot of other ones.

[Fangrim]

Alright Zhavric. Enlighten me.

I've said before that we can only prove claims so far as basic assumptions will take this. Perhaps you'll elaborate as to how I am misunderstanding context?

I'm not following, so it'd be nice of you explained it clearly.
EDIT: and not just in a general manner of explaining what context is, as the OP has done fairly well. I mean specifically relating it to my "basic assumptions" claim.

[Jack]

My take? Context is everything. Nothing exists outside a context of some sort. Thoughts, lives, the Earth, universe and everything in between exists in a context. To try to examine reality as if there was no context, to examine an event out of its context, gives you a narrow view. Context is what makes everything make sense. The more you know of the context, the more you can grasp the reality of the specific.

[ZNFYRH]

Agreed.

Why is this even a thread when this precise issue is already concluded in the fourth thread?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Alright Zhavric. Enlighten me. I've said before that we can only prove claims so far as basic assumptions will take this. Perhaps you'll elaborate as to how I am misunderstanding context?

We can prove things based on specific contexts. A lot of the agnostics on volconvo don't get how context works. They think each claim can be invalidated because our perception of it may be imperfect, etc. This is a very silly stance to take when one understands context.

Going back to the original op, I don't need to know the exact temperature outside to feel hot. We can add new context to discuss further issues about the temperature where I am. Point being at no time do we become intellectually crippled; we are always able to evaluate claims. We just have to be aware of what the context is and not swap it around.

[Fangrim]

...

Ok, so I understand context a bit more, but I still don't understand how that relates to my claim

[Athena]

Quote by: Zhavric Context is everything in debate and there are many volconvo posters who aren't understanding it... or think it prevents us from proving things. Let's start with a simple statement. "I feel hot." The context here (since it's written in present tense) means that all things that are described as Zhavric felt hot at 2:02pm on May 31st 2007 in Columbus, Ohio, USA. That is the only person the statement applies to. "But Zhavric," some will say."Columbus, OH is really cold compared to Venus so really your statement doesn't make any sense." Not so. Adding or removing information changes the context. Different contexts equate to completely different statements. "I feel hot" is not the same as stateing "I feel hot compared to Venus". The original context doesn't apply to Venus. We cannot change the original context and claim it's the same context. This is very important. We see it clearly illustrated when people insult one another. We pay very close attention to what's said. For example... Steve: "All women are dumb." Amy: "WHAT!? How dare you say that?" Steve: "Oh... uhm... I meant the women at the supermarket are dumb." Amy: "That's not what you said! You said all women are dumb." Steve attempts to amend his insulting context to something less insulting, but the damage is done. Amy refuses to believe his new statement should be equal to his old one. There are still those who think shifting contexts poses a problem with proving things. It doesn't. We can freely examine claims and compare contexts to determine their soundness. Discuss... without changing the context.

Very good! I sure wish these explanations of logic would get stuck to the top of a forum, instead the stupid arguments made with no concept of the rules, that are stuck there.