Atheist "identity"

@adk, Again, I go back to being a linguist and not really a philosophier, but I don't see that language works in this seemingly mysterious way you seem to be describing. When I say context defines things, or say that we have statistical frames working in our little heads, I'm not saying that milk can mean "dog". It means milk. to you, that may include powdered milk, and to me, maybe not, but the brain haddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddoiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii=jmkkkkkkles

I'm trying hard to avoid text walls, but evidently failing.

"Milk" probably wouldn't represent the same thing as "dog" - at least, it's very unlikely to. The cluster of four-legged, furry, barking objects in the real world called "dog" probably doesn't have much overlap with the cluster of wet, white liquidy stuff called "milk". I agree it's about knowing the audience because communication is a two-way process. We're both members of RationalWiki, we've both written things on skepticism and debunking, we read the same stuff on WIGO. The chances are that if I said "I'm an atheist" to you we'd know what we're talking about. This is fine, and we don't clash.

It is about what you infer from context, but that requires you to A) recognise the context and B) know precisely what you're implying, and what others are inferring. If you can't do this then... well you will clash and fail.

But I think there's one other important bit of context; what you intend to do with your statement. The other person you're talking to is important, and knowing what they're inferring from you is vital, but I think your actual intention is even more crucial to getting the idea across.

"I'm an atheist" is fine if you want to join an Atheist Society just because you're looking for somewhere to chat and hang out, or if you want someone to direct you to books like The God Delusion. It is not, however, very useful if you want to say something like "as atheists we should..." I think is a little more important because I don't think it is "written on their faces" when someone isn't actually inferring the same thing as you. If everyone agrees on their standard of evidence and logic then surely they would agree, A therefore B should be agreed upon by everyone, if half the people think A therefore Not B, then where is the problem - in the logic or in what A is?

You are generally better at saying what I was thinking. what you intend to do is critical. It's why loaded language exists. The intent of the speaker is to create images, create associations, and knowingly create false impressions. It's not a failure on the part of language or of the speaker. Sadly, it's actually a success.

Again, I have had philo classes over the course of my life, but am not really skilled in being a philosopher - in thinking that way. I think about language as a functional tool, not as a hindrance to communication. I generally assume that most people own their ideas, and the attempts to communicate them are usually successes. even if what they are trying to communicate includes being intentionally manipulative.

I also approach this having taught classes for years, on somewhat complex ideas about language and religion. at no time in those classes did i have to say "ok, you are confused about the word religion, so I need to use a different word". I walked in, explained my position, then expanded. So again, the idea that language or particular words hinder real understanding or indepth exploration of whatever topic you wish to explore seems counter intuitive to everything I've seen or done.

Are you going to have problems when talking about atheism with a die-hard christian fundi? Yes. But I disagree that the fail point (or fix point) is teh word choice. It is the willingness of the other party to use agreed upon meanings. And in that context, it does not matter if you choose different words or not - if he or she chooses not to hear you, they simply will not hear you.

The word choice is only the failure point if it fails to conjure up the intended images for someone else. Whether it be a single word, or a longer phrase. I don't think it's a problem with a piece language (or symbolism) or the person using it. Where I think the problem is the translation between the two.

Totally context:

Someone I follow on FB was asked on one of those anonymous question things: "what is the most adult thing you've ever done?" The fact is that she's an alternative model... so you can kind of see where that could lead.

Yes, but that is a fallacy or *intention* of the writer. Written communication, where you do not know the audience you will find, is more laden with potholes than spoken or "one to one" communication with an instant audience that cannot change without your awareness. (video also makes this one-on-one communication problematic. as does the modern invention of editing out the context and leaving only naked words).

When you tweet or facebook, you are not really communicating the way our language evolved. so yes, you do need new rules. But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

“”But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

QFT.

But, the trick is to give them no choice in how they interpret you. Hence you have to be aware of what they think and adapt to it.

So if someone says "you can't prove prayer with science", and won't listen no matter how many times you describe what science is, break it down into something else and make them follow you.

Uh-oh, this is starting to sound like linguistic qualia.