Off the Map

We can’t see atoms.  We suppose their existence.  That is, the existence of atoms is inferred.

Inference is an important notion in general semantics.  General semantics teaches the difference between fact and inference.  Both facts and inferences are statements we make.  But they are qualitatively different in a very important way.  Let’s look at some statements and see if we can figure out which is fact and which is inference.

‘

Which is fact? Which is inference?
1. John is six feet tall.
2. John is mad.

Now, let’s assume we’re looking at John and we have a ruler with which to measure him.  You probably have guessed right, that statement #1 is fact (assuming it’s true!) and statement #2 is inference.  What is the qualitative difference between the two statements?

You might say that an inference is a guess in order to fill in a hole in a story, while a fact is a verifiable measurement of some sort in order to fill in a story.  That is, an inference is unverified, and once it becomes verified, only then can it be potentially treated as fact.

Note:
Inference : unverified :: Fact : verified

Acceptable methods of verification would ultimately be for another blog post.  Generally speaking, rulers would be acceptable for verifying height.  Reading someone’s facial expression might be acceptable for verifying feelings; however, given that people lie, joke, act, etc., facial expressions aren’t acceptable for verifying feelings.  How we arrive at what’s acceptable or unacceptable is a whole other topic.  I’m choosing now to focus on the idea that the existence of language is not fact, but inference …

Now how on Earth can I say that?  You might say that what you’re reading is definitely language.  You might say it includes sentences, words, punctuation, etc., and by making those observations, you say there’s language.  I see your point, but in my opinion, that’s not acceptable for verifying there’s language if you want to get technical and remain scientific.

If you want to remain scientific, you start with observing phenomena.  When it comes to what you’re suspecting is language, you don’t see language.  Instead, if you’re reading this online, you see pixels emitting light.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that these pixels are communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these pixel emissions as language.

If you’re reading this as a printout, you see toner or some kind of ink.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that this toner or ink is communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these blots as language.

But note that not all language is written, that a lot of language is spoken.  So, again, to remain scientific, you start with observations.  You don’t hear language.  Instead, you detect sound waves.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that those sound waves are communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these sound waves as language.

It may be hard to wrap your head around this understanding that the existence of language is not fact but instead inference.  The challenge, if you’re having trouble accepting it, is for you to produce proof that something is language.  This might be easy for you to do if you’re producing the language.  But it’s not easy for you to prove if I start speaking in the following way:

‘

Ooooeeeeaaaaaa Eeeeeeeeyiyiyiyiyiyi.

Note that that’s a transcription of sounds I hypothetically said.  Because I can transcribe sound, have I spoken language?  Well, if it’s language, what have I said?  You might infer that I have attempted to communicate something.  Then again, you might infer that I have not attempted to communicate something.  You can’t verify it without peering into my head and finding some incontrovertible proof that I’ve spoken language.

What is the value of knowing the existence of language is inference rather than fact?  I’m not sure.  I guess it’s value lies in the understanding’s application.  I can make languagelike sounds that people can try to interpret, which would be a vain endeavor.  Inkblots on a page might not resemble language by they might be interpretable communication.  Human brains probably operate with prejudices that sort out what’s language and what’s not, which can lead to confusions when the opposite is the case.

Anyway, food for thought.  Please post a reply if you have a reaction to these ideas.

See also: existence, fact, inference, language, science, sound, verification