What is the role of measurement in science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PseuTonym
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PseuTonym

Guest
Consider published contributions to science studied one sentence at a time …
Can you measure the clarity of a sentence?
Can you measure the meaning of a sentence?
Can you measure the coherence of a sequence of sentences?
 
Subjectively but that’s not always a bad thing. Even morality is subjective.
I don’t think morality is subjective. I think ethics can be subjective, but morality is not subjective.

I think morality can be argued with the natural law to come up with objective truths. But morality based on theology would be considered subjective… however, I would argue that morality is based on philosophy and natural law, not theology.
 
Consider published contributions to science studied one sentence at a time …
Can you measure the clarity of a sentence?
Can you measure the meaning of a sentence?
Can you measure the coherence of a sequence of sentences?
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.

So the role of science is to MEASURE the natural world. Science does not deal with the supernatural.
 
Consider published contributions to science studied one sentence at a time …
Can you measure the clarity of a sentence?
Can you measure the meaning of a sentence?
Can you measure the coherence of a sequence of sentences?
Not sure where you’re going with this.

The information contained in sentences requires intelligence to interpret and derive meaning. It relies on definitions of words, syntax, logic.

You can’t measure “clarity” if it is not defined. If it was defined with strict measurable rules, then you could measure it.
 
The information contained in sentences requires intelligence to interpret and derive meaning. It relies on definitions of words, syntax, logic.

You can’t measure “clarity” if it is not defined. If it was defined with strict measurable rules, then you could measure it.
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?

The notion of “strict measurable rules” sounds like a proxy: something easy to measure, even though the output of the rules might not actually tell us what we want to know.

Consider the simple notions of truth and falsehood. Are there strict rules that allow us to classify any given sentence, so that the (name removed by moderator)ut is the sentence, and either the output is “true” or the output is “false”?

Surely it’s possible to know what the word “true” means, even though you don’t know whether or not a particular sentence is true.

This train of thought smells of so-called “logical positivism”, and that is the name of an ideology, not a commitment to truth.
 
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.
The notion of “strict measurable rules” sounds like a proxy: something easy to measure, even though the output of the rules might not actually tell us what we want to know.
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.
Consider the simple notions of truth and falsehood. Are there strict rules that allow us to classify any given sentence, so that the (name removed by moderator)ut is the sentence, and either the output is “true” or the output is “false”?
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.
Surely it’s possible to know what the word “true” means, even though you don’t know whether or not a particular sentence is true.
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.
This train of thought smells of so-called “logical positivism”, and that is the name of an ideology, not a commitment to truth.
Ok, I can see that. But perhaps your argument can be made more clear?
 
Do you want to study linguistics?

From ANU
linguistics.anu.edu.au/
Linguistics involves studying the nature of human language, from a scientific point of view. It seeks to understand the nature of language as a universal human faculty and means of communication. Graduate courses in Linguistics are designed to cater for the needs of students who have an interest in meaning, communication and cognitive studies; want to help extend the frontiers of what is known about the nature of human language; or are specialising in the study of a particular language or language family.

Just on one aspect

Clarity

Clarity of words is crucial. Language is how we communicate, words mean specific things. Clarity is extremely important. We could run a little science experiment on CAF. Insert a word in several sentences and see if meaning changes, see how people interpret the sentence. It will be subject to culture too. We have local, national and internationally different cultures here. We have different religious cultures, political cultures. A great framework for a scientific experiment based on your hypothesis.

We could even play around with commas in that framework.

If I say cat, can you clarify immediately what I mean, or do you need more words

And of course there is comprehension and cognitive science

readingrockets.org/article/what-research-tells-us-about-reading-comprehension-and-comprehension-instruction
 
The notion of “strict measurable rules” sounds like a proxy: something easy to measure, even though the output of the rules might not actually tell us what we want to know.
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.
Here is a copy of the post in this thread where the phrase “strict measurable rules” first appeared in this thread:
Not sure where you’re going with this.

The information contained in sentences requires intelligence to interpret and derive meaning. It relies on definitions of words, syntax, logic.

You can’t measure “clarity” if it is not defined. If it was defined with strict measurable rules, then you could measure it.
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.

Of course, you are entitled to reformulate your ideas. And I presume that I am also entitled to reformulate my ideas. Did I step over the line above in my attempt to read between the lines?
 
I think that it is worth pointing out that of all the words in this thread, you singled out the word “clarity.”
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.
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.
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.
Of course, you are entitled to reformulate your ideas. And I presume that I am also entitled to reformulate my ideas. Did I step over the line above in my attempt to read between the lines?
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.
 
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:
Consider the simple notions of truth and falsehood. Are there strict rules that allow us to classify any given sentence, so that the (name removed by moderator)ut is the sentence, and either the output is “true” or the output is “false”?
Surely it’s possible to know what the word “true” means, even though you don’t know whether or not a particular sentence is true.
However, I couldn’t have written the above unless I had been responding to your contribution, or something like your contribution to the thread.

The issue of truth versus falsehood reminds me of the following post from an old thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13024240&postcount=18

If you read through that thread, I think that you will see Pallas Athene attempting to authoritatively lecture everybody to accept a certain point of view, and then let slip an indication that Pallas Athene actually believes something that conflicts with the clearly and openly and elaborately expressed point of view. Interestingly, I agree with the point of view that seems to have slipped out. Unfortunately, Pallas Athene didn’t provide any clarification.

If we were to identify what Pallas Athene was preaching as Pallas Athene’s ideological background, then my only real question about that ideological background would be: “Are you willing to do a quick quality control check right now?”

What’s the good of possessing a belief if one is unwilling to test its quality? I prefer to pursue truth, even if I have to admit that I possess extremely little knowledge of truth. At least I’m trying.
 
From ANU
linguistics.anu.edu.au/
Linguistics involves studying the nature of human language, from a scientific point of view.
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.

For example, were B. F. Skinner’s theories of what he called “verbal behavior” scientific but wrong, or were they non-scientific? If they were non-scientific, then – arguably – perhaps Chomsky was acting as an amateur when critiquing B. F. Skinner’s theories of “verbal behavior.” The idea is that Chomsky’s expertise is in linguistics, and if Skinner’s theories aren’t scientific, then they aren’t part of linguistics, so that Chomsky’s professional qualifications in linguistics may have no application to the problem of critiquing Skinner’s theories.

If you look for definitions of astronomy, I think that you will find plenty of mainstream definitions that don’t explicitly specify that a “scientific” point of view is used.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top