Is it false to say something is empty?

[Ben_Sinner]

For example when we open a box but don’t see anything in it. We conclude “the box is empty” or “there is nothing in this box”

But wouldn’t that be false anytime somebody says that? Because there is still air and in the box so there is something in the box.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Why do we call a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner? It neither cleans nor creates vacuums. Evidently the English language lacks a good word for “an observable area of space inside a visible object, occupied by nothing visible except perhaps dust or sediment, or other things considered so insignificant as to amount to nothing.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Provided both the person speaking and the person listening agree on their intended meaning and interpretation I don’t see that this would cause any problem or confusion. The presence of air usually isn’t conceptually relevant to the available space within boxes.

 

[Rhubarb]

I guess in the strictest senses of the words, it’s false? If we see an empty box, pragmatics tells us that what we mean is “there is nothing but atmosphere in the box.”

 

[DaveBj]

In normal discourse of “things” it is assumed that air is not “something,” unless, of course, one is talking about a balloon.

 

[surritter]

It’s all based upon frames of reference that are understood by all who use the language. So it’s not an untruth.

In the same vein, take this statement: “The sun doesn’t move; the earth orbits around the sun.”
In a strict astronomical sense that is false, because everything in the universe is moving. But the statement is simply meant to convey the cause of the seasons, so it’s not attempting to say anything beyond the implied frame of reference (earth vs. sun).

 

[migencluz]

It’s kinda the same reason why people who actually know the pronunciation of Iraq (ee-ROCK) pronounce Iraq as eye-RACK; or people who actually know the French pronunciation of hor d’ouvre still pronounce the word as horderves instead of o’kh-duv-'khuh. Both parties know what it means; it otherwise might cause an inconvenience; and the detail is (sadly) not relevant to the conversation. Therefore, it is false in the most literal degree, but not to the degree the issue is raised to.

 

[Maddie26]

If we’re being literal, then nothing is empty, but then nothing is nothing, too. These words exist, as another poster said, to provide a basis for exclusion and comparison.

It all depends on context. If you’re conducting a scientific experiment then use the word empty with caution. Otherwise, empty really does mean what you think it means.

Also, vacuum cleaners do create a very small vacuum, however it isn’t maintained when the hose is open.The vacuum is what makes them suck as other particles rush to fill the vacuum. Nature abhores a vacuum. That’s why they suck

 

[tee_eff_em]

It’s all based upon frames of reference that are understood by all who use the language. So it’s not an untruth.

Right. Frames of Reference.

In the same way, you might find a banded chest at the bottom of the ocean and open it, either to be delighted finding it full of gold dubloons, :bounce: or crestfallen to find it is empty (but technically full of sea water).

In the same vein, take this statement: “The sun doesn’t move; the earth orbits around the sun.”
In a strict astronomical sense that is false, because everything in the universe is moving. But the statement is simply meant to convey the cause of the seasons, so it’s not attempting to say anything beyond the implied frame of reference (earth vs. sun).

More than that, we typically call the whole spectacle “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west”.

It is said a student of Wittgenstein, observing the dawn, once remarked: “Can you believe how ignorant people once were, to call that sun rise, when in reality the earth is turning?” And Wittgenstein’s reply that “I suppose they were ignorant. But I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun really were rising over a staionary earth?”

tee

 

[CHRISTINE77]

For example when we open a box but don’t see anything in it. We conclude “the box is empty” or “there is nothing in this box”

But wouldn’t that be false anytime somebody says that? Because there is still air and in the box so there is something in the box.

Why do we call a person an “airhead”?

 

[surritter]

More than that, we typically call the whole spectacle “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west”.

Along that line – you may know that the 3rd Eucharistic Prayer mentions, “from the rising of the sun to its setting…” That’s right out of the Bible, but it sounds strange to me because I often think “why should the Sacrifice only be offered during the day? What if we have Mass at night?”

I realize that that phrase is being used in a geographical sense (all parts of the world), not a chronological sense (day vs. night). But it’s another example – like the OP’s question – of how language and precise meaning don’t always overlap the same way in everyone’s minds.

 

[DaveBj]

It’s kinda the same reason why people who actually know the pronunciation of Iraq (ee-ROCK) pronounce Iraq as eye-RACK; or people who actually know the French pronunciation of hor d’ouvre still pronounce the word as horderves instead of o’kh-duv-'khuh. Both parties know what it means; it otherwise might cause an inconvenience; and the detail is (sadly) not relevant to the conversation. Therefore, it is false in the most literal degree, but not to the degree the issue is raised to.

Actually, it’s al-8e-RAAQ, where the “8” stands for the consonant “8ain,” the “e” is as in the word “be,” the A is as in the word “father,” only held twice as long, and the “Q” is not a “K.”

But that is not germaine to this discussion

 

[puzzledtoo]

Today is Monday the 25th so I will say Next Wednesday the 27th when speaking of that coming day. My wife and probably everyone else I have ever known would say “this Wednesday” when speaking of the same day. I believe I’m correct but since I’m the only one I know who thinks this way I am the one causing confusion when referring to a particular day in this manner. Right or wrong I’m wrong .

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . vacuum cleaners do create a very small vacuum, however it isn’t maintained when the hose is open.The vacuum is what makes them suck as other particles rush to fill the vacuum. . . .

A vacuum strictly speaking does not contain particles of any kind; no dust, no molecules, not even a single atom. A household “vacuum cleaner” creates suction and pressure, but not a vacuum in the strict sense. Maybe we should call them suction cleaners.

 

[Maddie26]

A vacuum strictly speaking does not contain particles of any kind; no dust, no molecules, not even a single atom. A household “vacuum cleaner” creates suction and pressure, but not a vacuum in the strict sense. Maybe we should call them suction cleaners.

Maybe we should.