Chapter 3: Clarifying Meaning

Sep 25th, 2018

● Purposes are to develop the ability to recognize obscurity in what others say, and to learn how to clearly say what we mean
○ Standard of assessment: precision
○ We think more clearly when our points are put as precisely as possible
○ Even if we disagree, there is hope of resolution if the disagreement can be focused on something precise
● Principle of charity
○ It’s tempting to adopt the least plausible interpretation of a statement we disagree with so it’ll be easier to prove that
the opponents are wrong
■ Eg Doctors who perform abortions are guilty of first degree murder
● These are exaggerations and overstatements
● But when there is an important issue at stake, find the fairest interpretation of their words that is
available, the one that best represents what they actually want to say
○ In any discussion we have the moral obligation to treat our opponents fairly, to follow the principle of charity, which
is to adopt the most charitable interpretation of their words among the possible interpretations suggested by context
■ When two interpretations are possible, we should always adopt the more reasonable one
○ Be charitable to opponents because winning is not the primary purpose of a rational discussion; it should be to
discover the truth and to develop views and positions that are as reasonable and defensible as possible
■ We owe it to our opponents to interpret their words in a reasonable manner
○ This principle should be followed not only when we interpret single statements, but also longer passages and even
entire books
● Linguistic ambiguity
○ Ambiguity and vagueness
■ Not the same
■ Ambiguous sentence: has two or more different but possibly quite precise meanings
● Should be avoided whenever there is a risk of misinterpretation whenever there is a risk that the
hearer will select the wrong meaning
■ Vague sentence: one that lacks a precise meaning
● Necessary if we are trying to express a vague thought or feeling
○ Eg I didn’t care much for Beethoven’s early string quartets
○ Vague but not ambiguous as there is no need to be more precise
■ Those who use vague sentences when precision is needed (or who use vague
sentences that look precise) should be challenged
■ Ambiguity and vagueness arise from the use of words within sentences and not properties of the words
themselves
● It is context that makes sentences vague, and it’s when the context lets us down that sentences
become ambiguous
○ Referential Ambiguity
■ Arises when a word or phrase could, in the context of a sentence, refer to two or more properties of things
■ Usually the context tells us which meaning is intended, but we may choose the wrong meaning
● Eg Pavarotti was a big opera star → big as in popular, or big as in large/fat?
● One type of referential ambiguity: between the collective and distributive use of a term
○ Nouns refer to class of individual objects; eg dog means callass of all dogs
○ When we use a term this way it is being used distributively
○ But sometimes we use a term to say something not about each and every member of the
class but about the class as such; this is collective use
■ Eg our university has a large wrestling team
● If wrestling team is interpreted distributively, the statement means the
individual members of the team are large
● If interpreted collectively, means the team has a large number of
students
○ Grammatical ambiguity
■ When the grammatical structure of a sentence allows for to interpretations, each of which gives rise to
different meanings
 ● Lord Denning spoke against the artificial insemination of women in the House of Lords
○ Grammar makes it unclear if it was the speech or insemination that took place in the
House
■ He promised to pay Stephanie and Michael $50 to clear all the junk out of the
basement and take it to the dump
■ Ashley strode out of the studio with Nikki following her, saying “I’ll never give
him up”
■ Daphne decided to quit smoking while driving to New Denver
■ Jim and I have suffered; often I wake up in the morning and wish I were dead,
and I know Jim does too
■ Women with babies who attend college encounter all sorts of exceptional
challenges
○ Use and mention
■ Another linguistic ambiguity arises from not being able to differentiate between using a word or phrase and
mentioning a word or phrase
● Eg Tom said I was angry
● Tom said “I was angry”
○ I was angry is being USED in the first sentence but only MENTIONED in the second
● Eg Paddy is Irish
○ Is Paddy a person, or “Paddy” the name?
● Eg the word “itself” is hard to define
● “John Smith” was placed on the ballot
● Analytic, Contradictory, and Synthetic Statements
○ Often when we know what a statement means we still don’t know if it’s true or false; eg if I say my birthday, you
understand what I said, but not if it’s true or false
■ That is part of the large class of sentences of which the truth or falsity is not determined by its meaning
■ There are some statements where truth or falsity is determined by their meaning:
● “All bachelors are unmarried adult males”
● “Some bachelors are married”
○ Once we learn the meaning of these statements, we know that the first is true and the
second is false
○ We don’t need to investigate facts to know this
○ A statement that is true by definition is an analytic statement
○ A statement that is false by definition is a contradictory statement
○ A statement whose truth or falsity is not solely dependent upon the meanings of the words in it is called a synthetic
statement
■ Useful when clarifying the meaning of certain statements whose meaning is not precise
■ When a statement seems false, ask if it’s false synthetic or a contradictory statement
■ When a statement seems true, ask if it’s true synthetic or analytic statement
● For eg if someone claims that every successful person is wealthy, useful to know whether they are
interpreting the word “successful” as financially successful
● If so, their statement becomes analytic, for it actually means that all wealthy people are wealthy
○ “A free enterprise system is superior to a socialist system”
■ A synthetic statement
■ Arguments used to support this claim: “In a free enterprise system, market
forces determine how resources are allocated within society”
■ “It is more efficient to allocate resources through market forces than through
decisions by government officials”
■ “An efficient system is superior to an inefficient system”
■ “In a socialist system, decisions by government officials determine how
resources are allocated within society”
■ “Therefore, a free enterprise system is superior to a socialist system”
● Danger arises when trying to show arguments 2 and 3 are true
 ● Argument 2 becomes analytic if it’s assumed than an efficient
allocation of resources is by definition one that is produced by market
forces
● Argument 3 becomes analytic if it is interpreted to mean that an
economically efficient system is economically superior to an
economically inefficient system
○ If the arguments are interpreted this way, the conclusion must
be interpreted to mean that a system that allocates resources
efficiently is more efficient that one that doesn’t allocate
resources efficiently
○ The conclusion itself becomes analytic
○ It is true, but trivially, since its truth depends not on the facts
but the way key terms are defined
● Descriptive and evaluative meaning
○ Many words have meanings that are both descriptive and evaluative
■ Fritz Kreisler was a renowned violinist - renowned has a double meaning, ie he was well known as a
violinist, and second, it means he was an excellent violinist
■ Disagreement about the fact can be settled by looking for historical evidence looking a how widely known
he was during his lifetime
■ The second is evaluative, as the speaker is giving his or her opinion that he was an excellent violinist
● Someone who thinks Kreisler sucks would be able to accept the descriptive meaning but would
have o reject the evaluative meaning of the statement
○ Notorious has the same descriptive meaning as renowned but has a negative evaluative meaning
■ Notorious and renowned convey an evaluation of the person being good or bad, whereas well known
conveys nothing about the speaker's evaluation
● Examples of shift in evaluative meanings while descriptive meanings remain unchanged:
○ He is very self confident and He is very arrogant
○ She is sexually liberated and She is promiscuous
○ He is a dedicated conservative and He is a fanatical conservative
○ They are freedom fighters and They are terrorists
● Evaluative part of the meaning requires a separate justification
● Necessary and sufficient conditions
○ Special kind of ambiguity can arise when talking about conditions that have to be met in order for something to be
true/to occur
■ Under what conditions would a major economic depression occur again?
■ What are the conditions for graduating with distinction?
○ To understand this ambiguity:
■ Being at least 18 years old is a condition for being eligible to vote in federal elections in Canada
● Which could mean anyone who is at least 18 years old is eligible to vote in federal elections in
Canada or
● Anyone who is not at least 18 is not eligible to vote in federal elections in Canada
○ In a particular case, eg a 57 year old prison inmate, according to first statement they
should be able to vote but according to second they shouldn’t
○ But law says people in prison can’t vote, so the second statement is correct
○ Being 18 years old is a condition, but it's not the only condition that needs to be met in
order to be an eligible voter
■ Being 18 years old is a necessary condition for being eligible to vote in federal
elections in Canada
○ A necessary condition is when X is a necessary condition for Y, if and only if, when X is
false Y must also be false (or when X is absent Y cannot occur)
■ Unless the necessary condition X is true, Y will not be true, but the truth of X
does not guarantee the truth of Y
 ■ Look for an instance of Y that is not also X (then the statement must be false,
because we’ve discovered an instance where X is not a necessary condition for
Y)
○ A sufficient condition is different, consider this:
■ Eg Holding a BA from the University is a condition for being a member of the
University Alumni Association
● This is ambiguous between:
○ Anyone holding a BA from the university is a member and
○ Anyone not holding a BA is not a member
● The first statement is the most likely interpretation bc even if you have
a Bsc you’re still an alumnus
● A person who holds a BA from the university doesn’t need to meet any
additional conditions in order to be a member of the association, but
holding a BA isn’t the only way one can become a member of it
■ A sufficient condition is defined as follows: X is a sufficient condition for Y if,
and only if, when X is true Y must also be true (or when X is present Y must
occur)
● A sufficient condition for Y is something whose truth or presence
guarantees Y, but whose falisty or absence does not prevent Y
● Look for an instance of an X that is not also a Y - the statement must be
false, since we have discovered an instance where X is not a sufficient
condition for Y
○ If we did not find a case such as this, we should accept the
statement
■ The difference between these is subtle but important; it’s a question about what
kind of guarantee is being made
■ When the condition is necessary, the speaker is asserting that its falsity (or
absence) GUARANTEES whatever it is a condition for won’t be true
● Y won’t be true unless X is true
■ When it’s sufficient, the speaker is asserting that the condition is something
whose truth (or presence) GUARANTEES that whatever it is a condition for
WILL be true
● Y will be true if X is true
■ Sometimes it’s both at the same time:
● It is a condition for a candidate being declared the winner in an
election in the Ontario legislature that the candidate received more
votes than any other candidate in the election
● Receiving more votes than any other candidate is a sufficient condition
for being declared the winner (bc anyone who has more votes than
other candidates MUST be declared the winner) and it’s also a
necessary condition (bc every candidate who is declared the winner
must have received more votes than any other candidate)
■ What happens when conditions are joined together?
● Eg all the necessary conditions to vote; age, be a citizen, no serving a
sentence, not being the chief electoral officer or assistant chief electoral
officer
● When these are taken together, they are a sufficient condition, because
any person who satisfies all four is eligible tov ote
● When we list all the necessary conditions for something these are
jointly sufficient conditions
■ Sometimes we can find two or more different sufficient conditions for
something
● According to the Criminal Code of Canada, it lists what has to happen
in order to commit a culpable homicide
● They are 4 sufficient conditions and if any one of them is met the
person will be found guilty
● If we take all of them together, we can say it states the “necessary
condition for culpable homicide” in the sense that AT LEAST ONE OF
THESE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET IN EVERY CASE OF
CULPABLE HOMICIDE