Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!warwick!nott-cs!ucl-cs!news From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Steven Smoliar> There is no such thing as objective description... Message-ID: <1602@ucl-cs.uucp> Date: 11 Jun 91 16:45:18 GMT Sender: news@cs.ucl.ac.uk Lines: 56 c.s.hutchison@kingston.ac.uk writes >> re: Steven Smoliar> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION >> >> I missed earlier messages, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I'm >> starting work in the area of descriptions and truth. Basically, the problem >> is this: given four descriptions of the same event (in this case, events >> which took place on 2nd June 1975 on the outskirts of what was then Salisbury, >> Southern Rhodesia) -- >> >> "Rioting blacks shot dead as ANC leaders meet" (Times of London) >> "Police shoot 11 dead in Salisbury riot" (Manchester Guardian) >> "Rebels kill 11 ANC men" (Times of Zambia) >> "Racists murder Zimbabweans" (Tanzanian Daily News) >> >> each report is either true (corresponds to a state of affairs in the world) or >> false (does not correspond). By virtue of the meanings of the words in the >> sentences, they cannot all be true at the same time. Yet they all report the >> 'same' events. My hunch is to say that the physical circumstances under- >> determine possible linguistic descriptions, enabling various ideological >> interpretations of the events. What then do readers 'know' about the events? >> How is knowledge in this sense distinct from mere belief? >> >> Any thoughts? The perception of reality by the (politically) Left & the Right, the rich & the poor and the First World & the Third World (and East & West), is a rich set of dichotomies. Two opposing political parties always seem to produce "facts" that show that they are "correct". I hope that Adrain Redgers does not mind me quoting him (from the AI-Digest). << Date: 10 Mar 88 20:26:58 GMT << From: Adrian G C Redgers << Reply-to: Adrian G C Redgers << Subject: ...visit to the Chinese Room - some implications << [...] << b) Last night (Wednesday March 9th) BBC1 showed 'Girls on Top' with French & << Saunders and Ruby Wax. In it 'Saunders' acts as a jobber waving her arms around << and making money in a share dealing room. After rising to dizzy heights of << profit she 'crashes'. It transpires that she had no idea what her symbols meant << to other dealers - she thought she was making a butterfly and then a bird.... << The moral of the story is that 'meaning' or the 'real world' will always outwit << (symbol manipulation) systems. I think Aristotle would disagree - but I don't. Am I making myself clear? :-) ____ Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716 Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT Drop a utensil.