NationStates Jolt Archive

Implication is the unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning of any remark. For example, if I say, "I don't like black people," that implies that I, in fact, dislike black people, rather than the less likely possibility that I am unaware of the existence of black people, and thus have no opinion regarding them one way or the other (or any other possible interpretation).

That's crap. There's no such thing as implication.

Yes, I did just say that. There exists no unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning in any remark. If I say, "I don't like black people," that tells you absolutely nothing beyond the denotative meaning of that statements. I may well be unaware of the existence of black people. Or I might be generally misathropic and dislike all people, black people included. You don't know, because I haven't told you.

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.

Of course, people aren't perfect at saying what they mean, so when done correctly, it can be useful to infer extra meaning. Furthermore, it is sometimes convenient to imply things, in order to avoid repetition and/or save time.

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.

You won't do very well with women.

You won't do very well with women.

I do well with rational women.

I have no interest in irrational people.

I bring this up because it comes up in so many threads.

The virginity discussion because an argument about whether the concept of virginity opressed people (though its implied sexism).

In the racism thread it was asserted that the term "white power" connoted oppression of coloured people.

If people would just take words for what they mean, instead of jumping to a hundred different conclusions which, while all consistent with the literal meaning, are not required by the literal meaning, we'd all fight a lot less.

I do well with rational women.

I have no interest in irrational people.

I sense a lack of experience here. :p

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.

True. However, if A says "you're a stupid idiot" to B, I fear that B will believe that A implied he considers himself superior.
Nor am I certain humans are capable of conversing without implication; ourlanguages are not suited for that.

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.I disagree. Language is about communication, and you can't communicate if you're not being understood. If you're not being understood, then it's up to you to change the way you phrase what you're saying if you do wish to be understood. If you do not wish to be understood, then it doesn't really matter if people are inferring anything or everything from your statements.

Implied meaning often works differently in other languages. Don't forget that. ;)

True. However, if A says "you're a stupid idiot" to B, I fear that B will believe that A implied he considers himself superior.
Nor am I certain humans are capable of conversing without implication; ourlanguages are not suited for that.

Sure they are. It's perfectly clear what the denotative meaning of that statement is. A hasn't made any claims about the relative intelligence of A and B. He's only made a general statement about B. That's it.

This isn't hard.

I disagree. Language is about communication, and you can't communicate if you're not being understood. If you're not being understood, then it's up to you to change the way you phrase what you're saying if you do wish to be understood. If you do not wish to be understood, then it doesn't really matter if people are inferring anything or everything from your statements.

I am understood. By rational people.

Other people's lousy reasoning isn't my fault, and I would further assert that it's unpredictable. If they're going to start using induction, then literally any conclusion that is consistent with my remakrs is possible. That's an infinitely large set, and I can't anticipate them all.

I sense a lack of experience here. :p

Nice inferrence. Watch your step around that giant gaping hole in your logic.

It's easy to meet rational people. They just tend not to interact much with the hoi polloi.

Implied meaning often works differently in other languages. Don't forget that. ;)

Which makes my point even more important.

I am understood. By rational people.So not only would someone have to use words as you use them, but they'd also have to fit your definition of rational...

Other people's lousy reasoning isn't my fault, and I would further assert that it's unpredictable. If they're going to start using induction, then literally any conclusion that is consistent with my remakrs is possible. That's an infinitely large set, and I can't anticipate them all.Your inability to anticipate the entire number of possible inductions isn't the fault of anyone else. Therefore, you should make sure that the person understands what you're saying, perhaps by using less extreme language.

If language were a precise tool, your theory would work. It is not.

Poetic license, metephor, similies, antonyms, contronyms, multiple definitions, figures of speech, regionalisms, even punctuation and word order all affect definition. Thus taking a statement at what it implies may well be the best way to actually understand what a person was trying to say.

The problem of understanding may even be compounded by the sort of dialogue we engage in here. In a face to face conversation, body language and facial expression are used to fill in the gaps that misunderstanding of words create. In a written document, the writer strives to deliberately overcome those problems with extremely careful choice of words and phrasing. However, many of us dash off these posts as though we were sitting around the living room chatting with a group of friends. WE know what we mean, because we are chuckling or indignant as we write them, but it is not always clear by WHAT we write what we intend.

if I say, "I don't like black people," that implies that I, in fact, dislike black people, rather than the less likely possibility that I am unaware of the existence of black people




That is one of the least logical things Ive ever read by a person who is busily writing about how wonderfully rational he and his peers are.


If you were unaware of the existence of black people how could it come to pass that you mention them?

If you were unaware of the existence of, say, butyl rubber the chances of you writing "I dont like butyl rubber" are almost nil.

Therefore I can easily determine that when you say "I dont like black people" that you are indeed aware of same.

By your rules of implication I would not be able to determine that you know the meanings of any word which you use. You may as well be an infinite number of monkeys on a like number of typewriters with a tiny percentage of accidental meaning spewing out of a massive pile of drivel.

So not only would someone have to use words as you use them, but they'd also have to fit your definition of rational...

Your inability to anticipate the entire number of possible inductions isn't the fault of anyone else. Therefore, you should make sure that the person understands what you're saying, perhaps by using less extreme language.

I use very precise language. Language can be a precise tool (some languages more than others, and that varies from topic to topic) when used carefully.

I'm asking that people read carefully. If someone writes poorly, that's his fault. Make it his fault. Don't compund the problem by drawing unsupported conclusions.

The concept of rationality isn't the subject of much contention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

If you were unaware of the existence of black people how could it come to pass that you mention them?

If you were unaware of the existence of, say, butyl rubber the chances of you writing "I dont like butyl rubber" are almost nil.

Therefore I can easily determine that when you say "I dont like black people" that you are indeed aware of same.

I don't like blue people.

I don't like winged people.

How's that?

Nice inferrence. Watch your step around that giant gaping hole in your logic.

It's easy to meet rational people. They just tend not to interact much with the hoi polloi.

Yes, it is a nice inference. As is the insult in your last sentence. If you want to insult me, do so. Don't imply it. Hypocrisy is the worst of all intellectual sins.

It happens that there are no rational people at all in this world. We all have our irrational desires and needs. And as for logic, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

I use very precise language. Language can be a precise tool (some languages more than others, and that varies from topic to topic) when used carefully.

I'm asking that people read carefully. If someone writes poorly, that's his fault. Make it his fault. Don't compund the problem by drawing unsupported conclusions.

The concept of rationality isn't the subject of much contention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

I would guess that you only speak one language. If you had ever tried translating even the most excruciatingly careful language. (Say Wittgenstein's in the Tractatus) you would know that it is not, and never can be, precise.

There is at least one implication in your sentence. To say you don't like black people is to necessarily imply that you think people can be labelled on either side of a division by the terminology "Black". There is a distinction between someone who is a "Black" person and someone who is not. Otherwise, the statement would be meaningless.

It might not be an entirely meaningful implication, but it is an implication made nonetheless.

I don't like blue people.

I don't like winged people.

How's that?


Completely meaningless by following your rules of implication.

Your words have the same meaning as fdgjhjild';oi234ur.kir3tliejr;iohjhjvo;hjhj

Indeed. People who automatically assume that an underlying, hidden meaning is present when it isn't, and treat their assumption as proven thruth without even bothering to check it, act like morons.

Myself I make sure to check assumptions before treating them as more than uncertain guesses, and unless there is a significant likely "hidden meaning", I don't read anything into it. Sadly, people generally use this rather inaccurate and stupid way of conversing a lot (especially in real life; with the additional issue of body language, this is nothing compared to it), meaning that I have to play along and guess what they mean in order to find out all they have to say, and make sure not to say anything that is likely to be assumed to have some unwanted "hidden" meaning.

Language is about communication, and you can't communicate if you're not being understood. If you're not being understood, then it's up to you to change the way you phrase what you're saying if you do wish to be understood. If you do not wish to be understood, then it doesn't really matter if people are inferring anything or everything from your statements.Conversing using unclear implications cause quite a few unneccessary misunderstandings, sometimes severe ones. No matter how good you are at it, there is always a greatly increased risk. It is an inherently flawed way of communicating.


And as far as rationality and rational people go, I have yet to meet nor hear of a fully rational person. Everyone has his/her share of human stupidity, and the only way to get rid of it all is to die or have your brain severely incapacitated. But there are quite a few (but relatively, still a small minority) who are relatively unafflicted with it.

Also, I think you would find that many with Asperger's syndrome would communicate very well with you.

If you were unaware of the existence of black people how could it come to pass that you mention them?

If you were unaware of the existence of, say, butyl rubber the chances of you writing "I dont like butyl rubber" are almost nil.

Therefore I can easily determine that when you say "I dont like black people" that you are indeed aware of same.He could very well have heard or seen the term without being aware of the concept of black people. Not too likely, but far more than almost nil.

Note: after prevewing once more before posting, I see some of my post is now obsolete. Oh well, I'll leave it as it is, but with this note.

I don't like blue people.

I don't like winged people.

How's that?
Similarly, there is an implication here that people can be divided into those who are blue and/or winged and those who are not/neither. It does not need to be the case that there are such people in order for a distinction to be made.

He could very well have heard or seen the term without being aware of the concept of black people. Not too likely, but far more than almost nil.



If a gun were placed to your head and you were forced to make a real guess at the number of people now living on the planet to which these conditions apply, would that number be greater than 0? greater than 10?

I don't like blue people.

I don't like winged people.

How's that?

Not so good. You claim you use language precisely, but "blue people" and "winged people" have no commonly understood precise meanings. One person could read that and think you are prejudiced against Disney geniis and angels, and another could think that you are nauseated at the sight of Smurfs and fairies.

Do you not like Violet Beaureguard? Kids who have lost at paintball? Those suffering from frostbite? Or perhaps depression?

And sorry, but dislike of any of those IMPLIES many things. Overall, it implies prejudice, but each specific prejudice carries its own implications. And we USE the fact that a statement implies things as part of communication.

Yes, it is a nice inference. As is the insult in your last sentence. If you want to insult me, do so. Don't imply it. Hypocrisy is the worst of all intellectual sins.

I baited you with that.

Labels - like hoi polloi - are value-neutral.

I would guess that you only speak one language. If you had ever tried translating even the most excruciatingly careful language. (Say Wittgenstein's in the Tractatus) you would know that it is not, and never can be, precise.

At least you admit that you're guessing.

German's actually one of the better languages for translation into English, but you're right. If you want to be precise, you need to choose the appropriate language for your statement.

There is at least one implication in your sentence. To say you don't like black people is to necessarily imply that you think people can be labelled on either side of a division by the terminology "Black". There is a distinction between someone who is a "Black" person and someone who is not. Otherwise, the statement would be meaningless.

It might not be an entirely meaningful implication, but it is an implication made nonetheless.

No. You simply inferred that I intended the statement to be meaningful. Holy bad assumption, Batman.

Completely meaningless by following your rules of implication.

Your words have the same meaning as fdgjhjild';oi234ur.kir3tliejr;iohjhjvo;hjhj

No, they simply lack any meaning beyond their denotative content. Of the set of things "blue people", I don't like them.

Similarly, there is an implication here that people can be divided into those who are blue and/or winged and those who are not/neither. It does not need to be the case that there are such people in order for a distinction to be made.

Not necessarily. I it's not possibly to divide people into blue and not blue, my statement simply becomes meaningless. Perhaps it is.

If a gun were placed to your head and you were forced to make a real guess at the number of people now living on the planet to which these conditions apply, would that number be greater than 0? greater than 10?

But it's not guaranteed to be 0, which is why your reasoning fails.

I don't like blue people.

I don't like winged people.

How's that?


How is what? I would hate to wrongfully interpret what exactly you meant by "that"

If a gun were placed to your head and you were forced to make a real guess at the number of people now living on the planet to which these conditions apply, would that number be greater than 0? greater than 10?Almost undoubtedly greater than 0. Very likely greater than 10. Somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand would be quite likely. I would go with around 500. Not that it's by any means a meaningful nor especially credible guess, as it's no more than a half-assed spontaneous estimate, but it could be worse.

Implication is the unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning of any remark. For example, if I say, "I don't like black people," that implies that I, in fact, dislike black people, rather than the less likely possibility that I am unaware of the existence of black people, and thus have no opinion regarding them one way or the other (or any other possible interpretation).

That's crap. There's no such thing as implication.

Yes, I did just say that. There exists no unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning in any remark. If I say, "I don't like black people," that tells you absolutely nothing beyond the denotative meaning of that statements. I may well be unaware of the existence of black people. Or I might be generally misathropic and dislike all people, black people included. You don't know, because I haven't told you.

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.

You can have an intentional implication for which you are responsible for. For example, If I were to say "well, it's getting late" The direct meaning is a comment on the time, the implied meaning is that I would like to leave. Dead simple mate.

Almost undoubtedly greater than 0. Very likely greater than 10. Somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand would be quite likely. I would go with around 500. Not that it's by any means a meaningful nor especially credible guess, as it's no more than a half-assed spontaneous estimate, but it could be worse.

That's fair. Bigger than my guess but reasonable and certainly not beyond plausible. Not that it matters but I can see your point against my argument.

How is what? I would hate to wrongfully interpret what exactly you meant by "that"

I am unaware of the existence of winged people, and yet I wrote the sentence, "I don't like winged people."

You had asserted that I would be unlikely to write "I don't like black people" if I were unaware of them.

For the record, I don't like butyl rubber, either, because I don't know what it is. I'm not likely to view something fondly if I'm unaware of it.

You can have an intentional implication for which you are responsible for. For example, If I were to say "well, it's getting late" The direct meaning is a comment on the time, the implied meaning is that I would like to leave. Dead simple mate.

What if you were indifferent toward leaving, but you thought the person you were with did want to leave? Couldn't that also be a simple reminder?

This is my point. There are too many different possible interpretations if we allow inference.

This is my point. There are too many different possible interpretations if we allow inference.

The simple fact is that we do both allow for and make inferences, all the time. We do not choose to 'allow' for it, it happens and we have to live with it.

What was it that Gandalf said when Bilbo wished him a 'good day'?

What if you were indifferent toward leaving, but you thought the person you were with did want to leave? Couldn't that also be a simple reminder?

This is my point. There are too many different possible interpretations if we allow inference.
In the above example the implication is still that you want to leave. You may not actually want to leave, but that is the implication. Also, yes it is a simple reminder; a simple reminder that you want to leave.

The point is that implication is highly dependant upon variable factors .like the language you are speaking, who you are speaking to, where you are, how long you have been there, the tone in which it is said, the words emphasized...

This is covered in the definition of 'implication'. The implication is the subtle message behind what you are saying. If this meaning was constant and easy to understand, then it wouldn't be an implication, it would be the direct meaning.

I am unaware of the existence of winged people, and yet I wrote the sentence, "I don't like winged people."

You had asserted that I would be unlikely to write "I don't like black people" if I were unaware of them.

For the record, I don't like butyl rubber, either, because I don't know what it is. I'm not likely to view something fondly if I'm unaware of it.


I dont have a problem with your failure to like things that you are unaware of or do not care about. I do not have issues with you intentionally using "I dont like black people" to make your point. I believe that I understand your point and even agree with it. To a point. However neither you nor anyone else Ive ever read is rational enough to get away with your rule of A reader shalt not infer anything above exactly what is written.


Its easy enough to see that when you merely use a pronoun a reader has to determine what person place or thing was implied by the pronoun. Like when you used "that" imprecisely. If you dont use pronouns then what you write will very quickly become too tedious and boring to wade through.

If your goal is to tell people that meanings arent always the same reader to reader and writer to writer and this can be improved then I think that you are heading in the right direction by providing extreme examples.

If your goal is to enforce semantics and rules of implication because you have perfected the art of communicating clearly and precisely then I think that you are throwing stones from a glass house.

In the above example the implication is still that you want to leave. You may not actually want to leave, but that is the implication. Also, yes it is a simple reminder; a simple reminder that you want to leave.

The point is that implication is highly dependant upon variable factors .like the language you are speaking, who you are speaking to, where you are, how long you have been there, the tone in which it is said, the words emphasized...

This is covered in the definition of 'implication'. The implication is the subtle message behind what you are saying. If this meaning was constant and easy to understand, then it wouldn't be an implication, it would be the direct meaning.

So you're saying there's an implication which is actually contrary to the preferences of the speaker? So now you're blaming the speaker for things he didn't say, and he didn't mean, and he wouldn't have wanted to say had he thought of them.

So you're saying there's an implication which is actually contrary to the preferences of the speaker? So now you're blaming the speaker for things he didn't say, and he didn't mean, and he wouldn't have wanted to say had he thought of them.
The speaker in your example was indifferent to leaving, however made the implication for a friend who wanted to leave. The speaker therefore is saying "well, it's getting late", he means "I would like to leave", however he doesn't actually want to leave himself. This seperation of his meaning and his desires was explained in the context of making the implication for a friend.

What you mean to say is that if the speaker innocently remarked "well, it's getting late" in reference only to the time. Well yes, the clear implication is that he wants to leave. If that implication wasn't intentional, too bad. Though bad wording, you miscommunicated and have to deal with the results. This is the drawback to speaking such a subtle and complex language. Sometimes you will miscommunicate. Whether or not it is truly your fault is the subject of sophistry, as you demonstate well.

Well, It's getting late...
See you all

I dont have a problem with your failure to like things that you are unaware of or do not care about. I do not have issues with you intentionally using "I dont like black people" to make your point. I believe that I understand your point and even agree with it. To a point. However neither you nor anyone else Ive ever read is rational enough to get away with your rule of A reader shalt not infer anything above exactly what is written.

We can aspire. As you say next:

If your goal is to tell people that meanings arent always the same reader to reader and writer to writer and this can be improved then I think that you are heading in the right direction by providing extreme examples.

I prefer extreme examples because they're good at highlighting the distinctions. And, any generalisation needs to apply even to extreme cases.

If your goal is to enforce semantics and rules of implication because you have perfected the art of communicating clearly and precisely then I think that you are throwing stones from a glass house.

I present them as firm rules so we'll have some standard with which to resolve disputes when misunderstandings occur.

I could have, instead, used the Kanye West example. "George Bush doesn't care about black people." As a libertarian, I actually want government officials not to care about me. I want them to ignore me and leave me alone. But I doubt that's the point Kanye West wanted to make. I suspect he was trying to point out that Bush does care about white people. And in a positive way. But that's not what he said. And I would have preferred if the general public response to his statements was to make fun of him for being an idiot, rather than drawing a conclusion unsupported by his statement.

The speaker in your example was indifferent to leaving, however made the implication for a friend who wanted to leave. The speaker therefore is saying "well, it's getting late", he means "I would like to leave", however he doesn't actually want to leave himself. This seperation of his meaning and his desires was explained in the context of making the implication for a friend.

What you mean to say is that if the speaker innocently remarked "well, it's getting late" in reference only to the time. Well yes, the clear implication is that he wants to leave. If that implication wasn't intentional, too bad. Though bad wording, you miscommunicated and have to deal with the results.

But I can't have miscommunicated. I made an absolutely true statement. (assuming it's getting late).

If I make a true statement, and someone else draws an untrue conclusion, it's their invalid logic at fault. I can't be held responsible for their lousy reasoning.

I bring this up because it comes up in so many threads.

The virginity discussion because an argument about whether the concept of virginity opressed people (though its implied sexism).

In the racism thread it was asserted that the term "white power" connoted oppression of coloured people.

If people would just take words for what they mean, instead of jumping to a hundred different conclusions which, while all consistent with the literal meaning, are not required by the literal meaning, we'd all fight a lot less.
Well i think that was me in the Racism Thread. Yes it's illogical but its a fact of life, people take messages from scentences that dont have the message written plainly in them.
Your brain fills in the gaps, its part of human nature, regardless of how much you complain about it, you do it as well. You might as well try and stop the tide by waving a stick at it than stop ppl from infering their own messages.

Implication is the unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning of any remark. For example, if I say, "I don't like black people," that implies that I, in fact, dislike black people, rather than the less likely possibility that I am unaware of the existence of black people, and thus have no opinion regarding them one way or the other (or any other possible interpretation).

That's crap. There's no such thing as implication.

Yes, I did just say that. There exists no unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning in any remark. If I say, "I don't like black people," that tells you absolutely nothing beyond the denotative meaning of that statements. I may well be unaware of the existence of black people. Or I might be generally misathropic and dislike all people, black people included. You don't know, because I haven't told you.

Any conclusion you draw beyond that denotative meaning is not due to any implied content, because there isn't any implied content. Your conclusion is due entirely to your inference, and no one but you is to blame for your inferences.

Trying to read something into what was said (or written) is a bad habit people have. I always find it amazing the people will jump to what they believe was meant instead of asking someone. Would you explain or what do you mean, shouldn't be a problem to ask someone but it seems it is. Why? Because asking someone what they meant (instead of the almighty assuming) makes a person feel inferior. Sadly the only dumb question is the one NOT asked.

People assume they know what was meant, they jump to conclusions, twist what was said to meet their own presumption. It is a bad habit and for my part I think it is absurd for people to do it. A listener does not get to dictate what was meant. And frankly a listener who has suffered this at anothers hand doesn't like it either. Jumping to conclusions simply tells me the person isn't interested in anything but their own opinion to begin with.

People assume they know what was meant, they jump to conclusions, twist what was said to meet their own presumption. It is a bad habit and for my part I think it is absurd for people to do it. A listener does not get to dictate what was meant. And frankly a listener who has suffered this at anothers hand doesn't like it either. Jumping to conclusions simply tells me the person isn't interested in anything but their own opinion to begin with.

Unfortunately the listener does get to dictate what the message means to him or her. Basic semiotics. You have the message and the receptor and from this combination meaning is established. Not from any one of them in isolation. i.e. a message without a receptor is meaningless.

If you don't like that then your only option is not to emit messages (and to do that you have to cease to exist, I am sorry to say.)

actually, there are implications in speech. There are alot. For example:
"John has two cars".

There are four maxims of speech:
manner: Be clear.
relevance: Be relevant
quantity: say what is needed, no more, no less
quality: be truthful

Additionally, there are three rules that conversational implicators must follow: they must me cancellable, calculable, and nondetachable.

Now, for the sentence "John has two cars", the conversational implicator is "John has exactly two cars". This is not stated, it is assumed. The logic follows this process.
We assume that the speaker is being cooperative. It would have been more informative for the speaker to say that John has three cars, but they didn't. Therefore, they must not have been able to without breaking the maxim of quality. The statement must be relevant, and true.

Stating that John has two cars would entail him having more.

therefore, we can assume that John has exactly two cars.

This can be calculated by looking at a scale. If he has two cars, we can see that in entails three, four, five, etc. It is non-detachable, as the same assumption can be drawn from this or directly related sentences. It is cancellable by changing the original statement to "John has two cars, maybe more". the implicator becomes invalid.

Implicators exist, and are accurate. Look into Grice's theories.

Implications are far too in-built in human communication for any change to occur. Trying go get people to say what they mean and only what they mean, and also to get everyone to understand that what anyone else says is what they mean and there is nothing to infer, is an almost impossible task. For whatever reason/s humans almost all make implications and inferences.

Your brain fills in the gaps, its part of human nature,

But it's unnecessary. We have control over our own reasoning. We can choose to interpret remarks literally.

regardless of how much you complain about it, you do it as well.

Well then, I'm very bad at it. It's largely why I have no social skills.

Damn Asperger's Syndrome.

Unfortunately the listener does get to dictate what the message means to him or her. Basic semiotics. You have the message and the receptor and from this combination meaning is established. Not from any one of them in isolation. i.e. a message without a receptor is meaningless.

Are you asserting that the words have no objective meaning? I think I'd dispute that.

Now, for the sentence "John has two cars", the conversational implicator is "John has exactly two cars". This is not stated, it is assumed. The logic follows this process.

Logic doesn't make assumptions.

But thanks for the tip of Grice's Theories.

Implications are far too in-built in human communication for any change to occur. Trying go get people to say what they mean and only what they mean, and also to get everyone to understand that what anyone else says is what they mean and there is nothing to infer, is an almost impossible task. For whatever reason/s humans almost all make implications and inferences.

We'll see about that. I'm raising my kids to be rational agents. I suspect that they'll be able to approach language literally if they learn language literally.

Logic doesn't make assumptions.

But thanks for the tip of Grice's Theories.




actually, linguistic logic, particularly pragmatic linguistic logic, does make assumptions. For example, I assume that you and I share definitions for all of the words I am using. I could say "That bird is livid". You might assume I mean angry, but what I actually mean is that it is an odd shade of blue. There would be a misunderstanding here, and the communication would have failed. However, if I said "that wall is gold", and we both understood it to mean a yellow color, the communication succeeds. If I don't make the assumption that you could have the same defn. as me, then the communication would be pointless. Another example is that people follow the maxims of speech. Without these assumptions, conversation would be pointless.

actually, linguistic logic, particularly pragmatic linguistic logic, does make assumptions. For example, I assume that you and I share definitions for all of the words I am using. I could say "That bird is livid". You might assume I mean angry, but what I actually mean is that it is an odd shade of blue. There would be a misunderstanding here, and the communication would have failed. However, if I said "that wall is gold", and we both understood it to mean a yellow color, the communication succeeds. If I don't make the assumption that you could have the same defn. as me, then the communication would be pointless. Another example is that people follow the maxims of speech. Without these assumptions, conversation would be pointless.

I would assert that in both cases you failed to communicate adequately, but you got lucky because I figured out what you meant.

"The bird is livid" is a great example of a sentence that should never be uttered on its own, because it says one of two things, but there's no way to know which.

I just did some quick reading on pragmatics. I was entirely unfamiliar with pragmatics (though I have studied semantics a fair amount), so here's my first impression of pragmatics.

They're crap. I don't think the difference between speaker meaning and sentence meaning is knowable. You'd always just be guessing.

I would assert that in both cases you failed to communicate adequately, but you got lucky because I figured out what you meant.

"The bird is livid" is a great example of a sentence that should never be uttered on its own, because it says one of two things, but there's no way to know which.
The fact is that implications exist. It is impossible to get rid of them.

Most modern accepted theories state that there is no "English". We each have our own language, that is closely related to the others whom we consider to speak "English". I haven't studied much of this, but that is Chomsky if you want to look deeper into that part of linguistics.

Even something as simple as this:
"can you pick me up from the airport tomorrow?"
"my sister is in town"

The second sentence seems irrlelevant. However, because we assume that the speaker follows the maxims of speech (including relevence), we can assume that it isn't just a random statement.

Another example is "can you pass the salt?"
We know the person is not asking if I have the ability to pass the salt, but is requesting me to do so. That is an implication.

I just did some quick reading on pragmatics. I was entirely unfamiliar with pragmatics (though I have studied semantics a fair amount), so here's my first impression of pragmatics.

They're crap. I don't think the difference between speaker meaning and sentence meaning is knowable. You'd always just be guessing.
eh...semantics, from what I know of it, doen't use pragmatics much... I could be wrong tho.

And it isn't truly a guess, as that word itself implies that there is no information backing it. For example
"John answered some questions"
This statement entails that he could have answered all of the questions, but the conversational implicator is:
John did not answer all of the questions

that is not said, but is implied by the statement, by the same train of logic I used earlier with "John has two cars".

I just did some quick reading on pragmatics. Actually on top of them? I was entirely unfamiliar with pragmatics(though I have studied semantics a fair amountAs opposed to an unfair amount?), so here's my first impression of pragmatics.

They're crap. I do not believe that pragmatics are constructed from excrement. Did you mean that you dont like them? I don't think the difference between speaker meaning and sentence meaning is knowable. Surely at times it can be knowable You'd always just be guessing.The same way I have to guess at meanings when reading your statements literally and only literally rather than assuming that I know what you mean



So how can we the public glean accurate meaning from even your rational writing without tedious questioning of virtually every sentence fragment? Id say we are more blessed than cursed with the ability to infer meaning rather than take every word literally. Youve built a more precise mousetrap that is awkward to use rather than a better mousetrap.

Implication is the unspoken, hidden, but intended meaning of any remark. For example, if I say, "I don't like black people," that implies that I, in fact, dislike black people, rather than the less likely possibility that I am unaware of the existence of black people, and thus have no opinion regarding them one way or the other (or any other possible interpretation).

That's crap. There's no such thing as implication.

I can categorically state that this is not one of the stupidest posts I have read here recently, and you most certainly are not an idiot.

"can you pick me up from the airport tomorrow?"
"my sister is in town"

The second sentence seems irrlelevant. However, because we assume that the speaker follows the maxims of speech (including relevence), we can assume that it isn't just a random statement.

But it might be. Why would you assume relevance, anyway? There's no basis for that.

Another example is "can you pass the salt?"
We know the person is not asking if I have the ability to pass the salt, but is requesting me to do so. That is an implication.

That's just a really poorly phrased question.

And it isn't truly a guess, as that word itself implies that there is no information backing it. For example
"John answered some questions"
This statement entails that he could have answered all of the questions, but the conversational implicator is:
John did not answer all of the questions

that is not said, but is implied by the statement, by the same train of logic I used earlier with "John has two cars".

You're presupposing the existence of implication.

If I say that John has two cars, that just means that John has two cars. It's like if you ask if I have enough bus far for the two of us, and I respond, "I have 4 dollars." If bus fare is $2/person, then I have confirmed that I do, in fact, have bus fare for the two of us, but I haven't said that I have EXACTLY 4 dollars.

When I read "John answered some questions," that's exactly what I get from it. My first instinct is to ask if he answered all of the questions, because I don't know that.

So how can we the public glean accurate meaning from even your rational writing without tedious questioning of virtually every sentence fragment? Id say we are more blessed than cursed with the ability to infer meaning rather than take every word literally. Youve built a more precise mousetrap that is awkward to use rather than a better mousetrap.

There's no tedium if you don't draw the inferences in the first place. It's only tedious is you have to go back and separate what you actually know from what you've created from nothing within your brain.

Think of it like a computer language. The computer knows exactly what you've told, and nothing more.

But it might be. Why would you assume relevance, anyway? There's no basis for that.You would assume relevance because the person is a part of a conversation. Why would a person, for no reason, say something that has no point to the conversation? Yes, it might be irrelevant, but then the person is not participating in the conversation.



That's just a really poorly phrased question.It actually isn't all that poorly phrased, as it is highly accepted. No person would take it to literally mean "can you pass the salt" unless they were purposely being a prick.



You're presupposing the existence of implication.
Implication exists. deal with it.

If I say that John has two cars, that just means that John has two cars.
That sentence also leaves it open that john could have three cars. He also has one car.
Lets say someone asks "Does john have two cars". John has exactly three cars. An appropriate response could be "Yes, John has two cars" or "He has three" Both answer the question, as owning two cars is entailed by having three. Because of entailment, implications are valid. Saying john has two cars does not entail that he has three, but does entail that he has one.

It's like if you ask if I have enough bus far for the two of us, and I respond, "I have 4 dollars." If bus fare is $2/person, then I have confirmed that I do, in fact, have bus fare for the two of us, but I haven't said that I have EXACTLY 4 dollars.No, you haven't stated that you have more. However, that is what is implied, or else you could have just said "yes". There is no reason to assume that you mean "I have four dollars, maybe more" unless you say it.

When I read "John answered some questions," that's exactly what I get from it. My first instinct is to ask if he answered all of the questions, because I don't know that.you would pretty much be the only one who would ask that. John answering all the questions is in no way entailed by "some". therefore, based off of the maxims of quantity, quality, and manner, the only accurate answer would be "some". If he had answered all, it would have been more informative to say so, and therefore, the person would have.



There's no tedium if you don't draw the inferences in the first place. It's only tedious is you have to go back and separate what you actually know from what you've created from nothing within your brain.humans naturally create implications.
"Is john a good cook"
"well, he isn't a bad cook"
implies that no, he isn't good. If he was good, the person would have said so.

Think of it like a computer language. The computer knows exactly what you've told, and nothing more.We aren't computers.

Language and communication aren't rational. They have to do with gestures, tones, facial expressions and many other factors. If everyone took everything completely rationally/literally, no one would get anywhere because nothing would be communicated.

I do well with rational women.

I have no interest in irrational people.

But people are often irrational. Hence there IS implied content.

PWNED. :cool:

But people are often irrational. Hence there IS implied content.

PWNED. :cool:
nicely put.

When one listens to or reads a statement, one must interpret the meaning thereof. Llewdor is suggesting that the most rational way to accomplish such interpretation is to only consider the denotative meaning of the statement. Others are suggesting that inferring connotative meaning is also a rational procedure for the interpretation of statements.

If one's only goal in interpreting the meaning of a statement is to avoid being wrong, then it is only logical to refrain from inferring any meaning from the statement other than its denotative meaning. By infering a connotative meaning, one makes an assumption, which has the potential to be incorrect. In attempting to avoid incorrectness in the interpretation of statements, one should avoid all potential incorrectness. Therefore, if one's only goal is to avoid incorrect interpretation, one should not infer any meaning other than that which has been denotated.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is not always irrational to infer connotative meaning from a statement. By inferring connotative meaning, one might run the risk of making an incorrect assumption, but one also adds to the meaning gained from interpreting the statement. Let's look at the example of "I don't like black people."

While it is hypothetically possible, from the denotative meaning of the statement, that the speaker is merely unaware of the existance of black people, and therefore lacks the capacity to like or dislike them, it is also highly unlikely. From personal experiance I can say that most of the people I have met are aware of the existance of black people. From this experiance I can conclude that the chance of the speaker being among the infintesimally small minority of the such ignorant people is so ridiculously low that I run almost no risk of incorrectness from making this assumption. Furthermore, by making the assumption that the speaker is aware of the existance of black peole, one's potential gain in information is very significant. Since the increased knowledge of the speaker's opinions is so significant, while the chance of the assumption being incorrect is so insignificant, it is completely rational to make this assumption.

I do well with rational women.

I have no interest in irrational people.
“How do you write women so well”?

“First, I think of a man then I take away all reason and accountability.”~ Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets.