Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Umbran]

Is there a dictionary that supports the idea "only a person can imply something"? I've literally never seen that claim before.

Dueling dictionaries are not actually going to address the misunderstanding.

In short, what Morrus seemed to be objecting to is the idea that inanimate (and often intangible) things have agency and responsibility. If we ascribe implication to the inanimate, we abrogate our own responsibility for the result, or accountability for the rigor of the logic or quality of thought process involved.

The importance of this becomes more obvious when we consider cases in which the resulting conclusion is erroneous, or does harm to people. If we ascribe the implication to the inanimate, then no person is responsible for the error or harm. Which, of course, is errant nonsense.

 

[The Firebird]

Is A->B, read as "A implies B", a common thing in math and symbolic logic? I wonder if use of the word in other contexts is related to the mathiness of the person using it.

(Is nature still allowed to abhor a vacuum? Is a thread grabbing a tangent to stay alive a related thing?)

That's an interesting thought. It has definitely been used that way in mathematics in my experience.

Dueling dictionaries are not actually going to address the misunderstanding.

In short, what Morrus seemed to be objecting to is the idea that inanimate (and often intangible) things have agency and responsibility. If we ascribe implication to the inanimate, we abrogate our own responsibility for the result, or accountability for the rigor of the logic or quality of thought process involved.

The importance of this becomes more obvious when we consider cases in which the resulting conclusion is erroneous, or does harm to people.

I think I understand but the logic doesn't seem valid to me. I read you as:

i) the use of implies suggests agency
ii) it is bad to ascribe agency to facts or to a state of affairs
iii) therefore implies should not be used with facts as the subject

I don't think (i) is true. If facts or a state of affairs can imply something then (i) is not true, trivially, because facts cannot have agency.

Do I misunderstand?

 

[Umbran]

I don't think (i) is true. If facts or a state of affairs can imply something then (i) is not true, trivially, because facts cannot have agency.

But, in this, you are assuming the conclusion.

Whether facts or a state of affairs can actually imply something, is the question. You cannot use your preferred answer to the question as part of the logic proving your preferred answer is correct.

Again, the key to this is to consider where responsibility ultimately lies in cases when the resulting conclusion is inaccurate.

The common linguistic habit of saying that facts or states of affairs imply something is an act of projection of our own cognitive processes onto those inanimate things. We look at information, we perform some mental processes to come to a conclusion, and then we say the information implied out conclusion. It is an act so common that it is considered proper, but that doesn't mean that act of projection stops happening.

 

[The Firebird]

But, in this, you are assuming the conclusion.

Yes, I agree with that. That was something I had in mind; in either case the conclusion is assumed based on the preferred definition of implies.

The common linguistic habit of saying that facts or states of affairs imply something is an act of projection of our own cognitive processes onto those inanimate things. It is an act so common that it is considered proper, but that doesn't mean that act of projection stops happening.

I can see a narrow case by which you can argue "implies ought not to be used this way". It's not one I find convincing, given, as you note that is not how English is commonly used.

Compare some other common constructions:

"The facts demand an explanation"
"The facts suggest he is guilty"
"The facts demonstrate the existence of water"
"The facts prove that X is a member of set K"
"The facts show Aristotle taught Alexander".

It seems to me insisting on this narrow use of imply is, at the very least, idiosyncratic. At worst it, uh, implies, we should depart substantially from English conventions in many other cases.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Of course.

 

[Cadence]

I'm attempting, and failing, to avoid imagining how different a thread asking if people thought (extraterrestrial and intelligent) aliens (with space travel) are real would be.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Meaning many would have said cloning dinosaurs would be as crazy as ghosts or aliens . What I f the government ever reveals there are then who knows about ghosts

If the government (or anyone else) reveals independently verifiable evidence of ghosts or UFO or whatever. Then I am likely to believe them.
The problem with assuming that they have evidence of something and are not revealing it, is, that the government (or anyone else) cannot prove that they do not have any evidence. One can always assume that they are hiding something.
On the other hand accepting presented evidence is a pretty straightforward matter.

 

[Umbran]

It seems to me insisting on this narrow use of imply is, at the very least, idiosyncratic. At worst it, uh, implies, we should depart substantially from English conventions in many other cases.

1) Note: I am not insisting on anything. I am explaining a position.

2) Whether or not we change behavior, we should understand what we are actually doing in that behavior. In this case, we are presenting the results of our cognitive processes as objective reality - it is not our (human, fallible) inference, it is the universe implying! English conventions do not prevent bad things from happening when we do that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Oh, well in that case “you disagree with me” is a metaphor for “the coxswain ate the fruit cake hesitantly.”

I have met some fruitcake, that I would be hesitant to eat also.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm attempting, and failing, to avoid imagining how different a thread asking if people thought (extraterrestrial and intelligent) aliens (with space travel) are real would be.

I know right? It's essentially the same argument ("I can't explain it, therefore CrYpTiDs!") but I wager it would have very different poll results.

Not because of stronger evidence--or any evidence, really--but simply because space-traveling aliens + government conspiracy is the newer idea. It sounds more science-y.