Musings about human speech

[HansMustermann]

You know, I've been thinking lately, and it seems to me like 99% of the time human speech, and by extension writing, doesn't actually have anything to do with actual logic.

As a random example, and the thing which got me started on this line of thinking, was remarking in another thread that those who use the "even animals do X" don't seem to actually take that as an universal axiom. The same persons have no problems with using "only dumb animals do Y", sometimes in the same breath. They don't actually have a consistent naturalistic system, or a "whatever animals do is good" axiom. It's just an ad-hoc rationalization.

Another example is from a recent thread about some "pro-family" group claiming that contraceptive pills don't just kill "unborn babies" and women, but harm the bloody environment too. So suddenly it becomes not just a fight for their dogma, but a saving-the-planet issue. I would have expected at that point to see some data about exactly what harm do those things do to the planet, but they don't even attempt to support that claim. It's just used as a meaningless buzzword, more there to help make it sound grand, than some supportable claim.

Yet another example are the endless arguments for some religion or another, some boiling down to such blatant nonsense as, basically, "it's true because it's useful". Sometimes actually phrased like that, but also the underlying thrust to stuff like that religion makes people moral. They're trying to support a claim that something is the Truth by merely arguing that that claim is useful. And I don't believe one bit that they have a consistent view that any claim X is automatically true if making that claim is useful. Otherwise, since having a weather forecast is useful, it would become true and you could change the weather by just saying so. And generally it would require a mode of thinking that is characteristic of small children, not of adults.

Etc.

So I'm thinking maybe they weren't trying to convey any logic in the first place. It seems to me like speech is more like a mechanism for aligning to a group or another. The amount and vehemence of arguments given for one issue or another are just supposed to let one gauge how strongly the interlocutor feels about some issue or another. So basically we can negotiate a common set of beliefs and attitudes for the "us" group.

 

[Harpyja]

You know, I've been thinking lately, and it seems to me like 99% of the time human speech, and by extension writing, doesn't actually have anything to do with actual logic.

Well, yeah. You can't really quantify a percentage, but trust me, I'm sure this board knows this fact all too well. In my opinion it's not because of any particular nuance of writing or speech itself, but because humans on the whole are not logical creatures, in the sense of easily grasping any process other than what we've evolved to perceive. Richard Dawkin's book Unweaving The Rainbow illustrates this rather well.

Another example is from a recent thread about some "pro-family" group claiming that contraceptive pills don't just kill "unborn babies" and women, but harm the bloody environment too. So suddenly it becomes not just a fight for their dogma, but a saving-the-planet issue.

Link?

 

[HansMustermann]

http://www.ewtnnews.com/new.php?id=766

and it was quoted in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176588

The offending quote I was referring to is: "The birth control pill is not only killing preborn children and women, it is killing our environment," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League (ALL). "How long will we stand by and ignore the fact that hormonal contraception wreaks havoc on our children, women's health and the planet?"

 

[Wowbagger]

You know, I've been thinking lately, and it seems to me like 99% of the time human speech, and by extension writing, doesn't actually have anything to do with actual logic.

Of course not! Language, from the get-go, was developed for persuasion; to convince people, by whatever means necessary, to do something they might not otherwise do.

Why would you assume logic had anything to do with it?!!

 

[Brainache]

http://www.ewtnnews.com/new.php?id=766

and it was quoted in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176588

The offending quote I was referring to is: "The birth control pill is not only killing preborn children and women, it is killing our environment," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League (ALL). "How long will we stand by and ignore the fact that hormonal contraception wreaks havoc on our children, women's health and the planet?"

I recall seeing a documentary a few years ago about how some species of wetland fauna were dieing out because the males were becoming infertile as a result of too much eostrogen in the environment. I don't recall if the documentary said exactly where the eostrogen was coming from, but I'm pretty sure it had more to do with modern farming methods rather than millions of birth control pills going down the drain.

 

[HansMustermann]

I've even heard of the oestrogen increase being because of the way we make plastics, but yeah, nobody's blamed it on birth control pills yet.

ETA: especially since the pills are either that in combination with a hefty dose of progesterone or only progesterone. You'd think that if enough of the oestrogen in the environment were from those pills, they'd also find the other hormone there, right?

 

[dlorde]

I've even heard of the oestrogen increase being because of the way we make plastics, but yeah, nobody's blamed it on birth control pills yet.

ISTR reading some time ago about the high levels of persistent (human) pharmaceuticals and their breakdown products being found downstream of large towns and cities - particular reference was made to oestrogens that were having feminising effects on the local fauna... (see Sex Change Linked To Waste).

ETA: especially since the pills are either that in combination with a hefty dose of progesterone or only progesterone. You'd think that if enough of the oestrogen in the environment were from those pills, they'd also find the other hormone there, right?

Are you saying they haven't found any progesterone or its metabolites?

 

[timhau]

Of course not! Language, from the get-go, was developed for persuasion; to convince people, by whatever means necessary, to do something they might not otherwise do.

More specifically, it was developed so the smaller, quick-witted guy who couldn't hunt worth damn could also get laid.

 

[HansMustermann]

ISTR reading some time ago about the high levels of persistent (human) pharmaceuticals and their breakdown products being found downstream of large towns and cities - particular reference was made to oestrogens that were having feminising effects on the local fauna... (see Sex Change Linked To Waste).



Are you saying they haven't found any progesterone or its metabolites?

At least I haven't seen that claim.

And certainly if those pills put enough oestrogen in the environment to chemically castrate the males, then they'd also put enough progesterone in the environment that (alone or together with the oestrogen) they'd thoroughly sterilize the females too. I.e., you wouldn't just notice that some caribou (or whatever) can't get it up, you'd also notice that you can't get the females pregnant even by artificial insemination.

But at any rate I'd like to see such a claim before I can judge it.

 

[HansMustermann]

Of course not! Language, from the get-go, was developed for persuasion; to convince people, by whatever means necessary, to do something they might not otherwise do.

Why would you assume logic had anything to do with it?!!

Well, it's hard to explain, but basically I would have assumed that someone is either at least trying to find some half-way valid reasons or is at least aware that he/she is BS-ing me. And this led to a certain hostility on my part -- mind you, usually not overt hostility -- as I was basically assuming some persuasion intent behind it, as you seem to.

The "revelation", so to speak, is that now it seems to me it's probably neither. They're probably not even realizing they are BS-ing anyone, or in many cases BS-ing themselves.

Even putting it as an attempt at persuasion ascribes an intent, a "mens rea", to it. And, sure, some people do have it. But it seems to me that most don't. They're not even trying to either persuade me to do anything, nor really even trying to use any kind of logic, broken or valid alike. They're just spewing nonsense as some kind of a... social interaction protocol. Sorta like those funny tones an analog fax sends to negotiate a connection speed.

Basically that most conversations aren't even supposed to make any sense whatsoever. They're just a way to align oneself to a group or to each other.