Replying to LO30931 --
Dear Don:
I really do get so much out of what you have to say. Can't tell you
how much I value discussion with you.
Now in response to what you say, I agree that languages and the
commitments that lie behind them are cultural and contextual. And in
a sense that's the point I've been trying to illustrate with some
others by disclaiming certainty in such seemingly certain statements
like '1 + 1 = 2.' I think I've made that clear.
But none of that is to say that we nevertheless seek, through
language, to describe the facts, the reality, of the world. Rather,
it is to say that our language AND our capacity to describe the world
are both fallible. And perhaps it is also to say that our languages
contribute to our fallibility. So be it.
More importantly, we are a species on Earth that has developed the
capacity for language. Perhaps not the only one, but here we are.
And what language does for us, among other things, is endows us with
the capacity to say the fire is hot and will kill you before you step
into it. Thus, it gives us the ability to state our mental beliefs in
explicit and objective form before we (or others) take action in
accordance with them (our beliefs). And by doing so it permits us to
subject our beliefs (tacit or otherwise) to open and shared criticism.
As Popper might have said, it is this ability to express our beliefs
in objective form that allows us to kill our worst ideas before they
kill us!
I raised the 'statements vs. facts' issue in this thread because I
find arguments over definitions to be fruitless, arbitrary, and
political. What I tried to do is to shift the discussion from 'what
does this word mean?' to 'what are we talking about at base?' It was
my hope that we could agree that what matters is not so much the
definition of words that we confer upon them (the words), but whether
or not through language we can make statements about the world that
conform with the way the world really is.
And why would we want to do that? Because in order to take effective
action in life, we have to take action in accordance with knowledge
that is true. And truth, I contend (along with many others), consists
of statements that correspond with the facts. That's the kind of
definition I hold to be useful in our discussions of knowledge. Call
this correspondence I speak of whatever you like. I call it
knowledge. It really doesn't matter.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
Co-Director, KMCI (www.kmci.org)
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC (www.macroinnovation.com)
(802) 436-2250
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.