I don’t think morality is subjective. I think ethics can be subjective, but morality is not subjective.
BTW - in the world of predictive coding models, language is broken into “shingles” where computers use predictive coding models compare text and score them based on meaning. in coherency can be reported on clarity can be too by measuring concept terms the computer identifies based on the analysis of the shingles.
Not sure where you’re going with this.
Pick any word. Now find a definition (for the word that you chose) that somebody already created. Can you measure the clarity of the definition?
I don’t know but I guess so since one of the words is “clarity” and depending on what that means … still not sure what your argument is here though.
Yes, true. But where did you get that phrase “strict measurment rules” and why are you concerned with it? Sounds like this is coming from a different discussion that is not referenced here on this thread.
As we discussed, a sentence is a construct that comes from intelligence. Symbols are assigned meaning. This can be totally arbiitrary and subjective. You can make up a language. However, the notions of true and false are not arbitrary. They are necessary and are embedded into the universe and human nature by God.
As above, we know the difference between true and false. This does not come from logic or reasoning or explanations - it is something that every human being knows. It is a necessary part of human life and thought - coming from God and no other source.
Ok, I can see that. But perhaps your argument can be made more clear?
Here is a copy of the post in this thread where the phrase “strict measurable rules” first appeared in this thread:
I think that it is worth pointing out that of all the words in this thread, you singled out the word “clarity.” Reading between the lines, I see a hint that there is some deficiency in the existing definitions for the word “clarity.” It seems that to be considered completely satisfactory, a definition is supposed to supply a method for assigning a numerical value to every point on every continuum.
It was just the most significant word in the first of your three scenarios so I started to discuss that one before going on to the rest.
No, I wouldn’t say that. But measurement is dependent on definitions for the measurement system being used and the thing being measured. These can be either more or less accurate. If you’re saying that there are some things that cannot be precisely measured through a scientific method or with empirical tools - then yes. Agreed.
No, I thought you did well. It seems you are exploring this topic and that seems good to me. I don’t know you or your religious background so I wasn’t sure if you were seeking to establish a point, or just get opinions and ideas on this.
In hindsight, the only value that I contributed to the thread was here:
However, I couldn’t have written the above unless I had been responding to your contribution, or something like your contribution to the thread.
Putting an explicit requirement that the point of view be “scientific” into the definition of the word “linguistics” makes it difficult to use the word “linguistics.” We would have to agree upon the demarcation between science and non-science, and also categorize any given system of ideas about language based on what side of the demarcation line we believe it falls on.
Scientific is well-defined as the use of specific methods of reasoning based on empirical measurable evidence.
