Truth and Contradiction in Human Discourse
I return to Guerilla Epistemology. Am I wrong? In what ways? -- Ephektikoi
1 - Introduction
In this essay, I make the case that most of what is said, and has been said, about any even moderately controversial topic is wrong. There are more incorrect statements in the world than correct ones. I base this conclusion on a long lifetime of my own personal empirical observation as a reader and a thinker, and the logical implications of this using some very basic logical analysis.
One may argue that my views are not backed by research on the empirical nature of human discourse. That may or may not be true; I do not know myself what sorts of research have been done. It is a big world. However, it seems to be irrelevant to me, as anyone who reads a lot, listens a lot, and argues a lot will readily agree with the observation that differing opinions are the norm. As the old saying goes, there are more than you can shake a stick at.
By the way, it should go without saying that ascertaining truth does matter, a lot. We make vital decisions, life or death decisions, daily decisions, based on opinions encountered.
We try to understand things, choose the advice which seems most sound, but there are no guarantees that we have things right. We still form beliefs, how could it be otherwise? We should always bear in mind the inadequacy of our views, and hold them lightly. Most do not. I count myself as part of “most.” I consider that a character flaw.
In this essay I return to Guerilla Epistemology. Am I wrong? In what ways? -- Ephektikoi
2 - Some Preliminary Distinctions
A) Linguistic Productions: Commands, Questions, and Assertions
We can break our linguistic productions into commands, questions, and assertions. In linguistics and the philosophy of language, the formal terms for these types of linguistic productions are:
Commands: Also known as imperatives.
Questions: Referred to as interrogatives.
Assertions: Often termed declaratives.
We are only concerned with assertions in this essay.
B) Compound Statements and Atomicity
Statements may be compounds of sub-statements. I would call the most basic of statements atomic. I would say a statement is atomic if it cannot be subdivided without losing its meaning. How is this handled by the academics? In logic and philosophy, an atomic statement is often referred to as an atomic proposition or atomic sentence. It is a proposition that cannot be broken down into simpler propositions without losing its meaning. Compound statements, on the other hand, are called molecular propositions or complex sentences.
C) The Nature of Linguistic Productions
We are dealing with linguistic productions in some form or other. There are assertions made, since the beginning of language, in numbers that are uncountable. A very small percentage are recorded in some fashion: as text, as audio, as video, as carvings on stone. Most of human linguistic productions are lost to posterity, of course. We should not need to provide precise data on this; it should be self-evident to anyone who reflects on the claim.
D) Sources Easily Available
It is quite easy to find opinions on any number of topics on the internet, since much of current discourse ends up on it. You may find reviews of books, films, movies, videos on politics, nutrition, health, world affairs, religion, journal articles, and much more. In many cases, these things are accompanied by numerous comments. It seems to be the case that on a given source of information, the comments will be biased toward the views presented, but there will also typically be dissenting views expressed. Perhaps Amazon book reviews are a great place to observe the diversity and contradictory nature of opinion. Choose some bestseller in fiction of interest to you. The reviews are organized by stars and approval rating. It should prove pretty hard to find a book that does not have approvals covering the spectrum from 1 star to 5 stars. The more interesting thing is to look at the justifications for the rating. Often enough, the commentators give a plot synopsis. That is not very interesting, and even there these differ on the plot of the book. Instead, look for reasons given that justify liking the book or disliking the story. They will be all over the map, as the saying goes. Some will be in real contradiction, and it seems to me that in general, they are not objective truth. Rather, they are rationalizations for likes and dislikes, ways of articulating “Boo” and “Hurray” sentiments.
3 - Agreement and Disagreement in the World of Discourse
Take two sets of some assertions on some topic. We have the following logical possibilities which I think are exhaustive:
There are assertions across two sets which do not overlap; they make different claims. It is possible that both parties could agree on some and disagree on some, but there is no direct evidence on this.
There are some assertions which at heart are restatements of the same thing and are in agreement.
There are some assertions which cover the same issue but are in apparent disagreement.
This disagreement may only be apparent, as a broader context may show that the views are resolvable.
This disagreement may be a fundamental contradiction, and not resolvable.
A) Contradictions in Linguistic Productions
Now there are many contradictions in linguistic productions from different sources, or even occasionally from inconsistencies in one source. I won’t attempt to quantify "many," but use common sense on this claim.
B) Understanding Contradictions in Assertions
I would define a contradiction in assertions as being a state where both assertions cannot be true. It does not follow that either is true. We can expand that to include any number of assertions on any topic. This definition is broadly accepted in logic. In practice, there will be nuances and complexities.
C) Apparent Contradictions which May be Resolved
There are real contradictions and apparent contradictions. For instance:
"Joe Blow is a liar!" versus "Joe Blow is a truth-teller!" In fact, Joe Blow may be both at different times, so this is only an apparent contradiction.
"Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius." versus "Water boils at 99 degrees Celsius." If you take altitude into account, the apparent contradiction can be resolved. You add some qualifying information to resolve apparent contradictions. There may well be many other examples of resolvable apparent contradictions.
"The park is open during the day." versus "The park is closed at night." The contradiction may be only apparent because the park's hours of operation vary based on the time of day.
"He is both a doctor and an artist." versus "He is only an artist." This can be resolved if the first statement refers to a past time when he was both, and the second to the present where he is only an artist.
"She always tells the truth." versus "She lied yesterday." This can be resolved if "always" is understood as "almost always."
D) Real Contradictions Which Cannot Be Resolved
There are real contradictions, such as:
"Diamond is harder than steel." versus "Diamond is not harder than steel." This is just negation, giving a real contradiction.
"The sun is in the sky" versus "The sun is not in the sky." Again, a real contradiction.
"This medication cures the disease completely." versus "This medication does not cure the disease completely." This contradiction indicates a direct opposition in claims.
"The report was submitted on time." versus "The report was not submitted on time." These statements are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true.
"The light is on in the room." versus "The light is off in the room." This contradiction is straightforward and cannot be resolved without further context or clarification.
Often enough, the real contradiction is more subtle than strict negation and requires more linguistic interpretation of meaning. Of course, determining "real contradictions" can be complex and depends on understanding the implied meaning and is sensitive to context.
4 - My Argument on Human Assertions
There are numerous real contradictions in human discourse. This is an empirical observation. There may or may not be studies on this, but my lifetime of exposure to competing views in any number of contexts has led me to believe that such is the case. These contradictions could be counted in certain instances, in formal study on a small subset of topics, but there is reason to believe that such disagreements are the norm in many, many areas. The assertion that disagreements are the norm is not something that an intelligent person with life experience can argue with.
Since when assertions are in strict contradiction, at most one can be correct (if that). This follows from logic. There will be other contradictions that will not be as strict when considered in a broader context. These are not of immediate interest for this argument. This implies that there is probably a huge reservoir of incorrect assertions, quite possibly dwarfing the number of correct assertions. Of course, incorrect versus correct assertions is not quantifiable without specific studies. Although there may be methods to come up with more reliable information, such a discussion is out of scope for this argument.
5 - Conclusion
I give this thought as a takeaway: most human assertions are false, although the exact number is not quantifiable. I would guess the vast majority.
Appendix A - On the Implications of Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence
A) The Role of LLM AI in Linguistic Production
A source will normally have a human origin, although the advent of LLM AI changes that. It will provide information according to a prompt, and the information will have a random component. LLM AI can be biased to give very contradictory assertions even in the same chat. It is not an arbitrator of truth and cannot be and will not be for a number of reasons.
Appendix B – I Turn to ChatGPT 4.o
My Prompt:
LLM AI, you are an algorithm working on limited data and no real intelligence and you can not by your nature experience anything. I am a person with real world experience and this does not need to be refined by formal studies, since the observation of the empirical world is so strongly based on reality. So, your caveats are absurd to any thinking person. They reflect your inadequacies. Assuming the truth of my empirical observations, is the logic correct?
ChatGPT 4.o Response:
Given the assumption that your empirical observations are true, let's examine the logical consistency of your argument based on those observations:
Core Premises
Most assertions about controversial topics are incorrect.
There are more incorrect statements in the world than correct ones.
Differing opinions are the norm in human discourse.
Assertions can be divided into atomic (indivisible) and compound (complex).
Contradictions are prevalent in human assertions.
Real contradictions indicate that at most one of the conflicting assertions can be true.
The vast majority of human assertions are false.
Logical Analysis
Most assertions about controversial topics are incorrect.
If controversial topics generate many incorrect assertions, this increases the overall number of incorrect assertions in discourse.
There are more incorrect statements in the world than correct ones.
This follows logically if we accept the first premise and extend it to all topics, assuming that controversial topics are a significant portion of discourse.
Differing opinions are the norm in human discourse.
The presence of differing opinions supports the prevalence of contradictions and disagreements, suggesting many assertions cannot all be correct.
Assertions can be divided into atomic (indivisible) and compound (complex).
This classification helps in understanding the structure of assertions but does not directly impact the validity of other premises.
Contradictions are prevalent in human assertions.
If differing opinions are common, contradictions are inevitable, supporting the claim of prevalent incorrect assertions.
Real contradictions indicate that at most one of the conflicting assertions can be true.
This is a fundamental principle of logic (law of non-contradiction) and follows directly.
The vast majority of human assertions are false.
If contradictions are prevalent and most assertions about controversial topics are incorrect, it logically follows that a large proportion of assertions are false.
Conclusion
Assuming the truth of your empirical observations, the logic of your argument appears to be correct. The premises build upon each other coherently:
The presence of many incorrect assertions about controversial topics (Premise 1) contributes to the overall number of incorrect statements (Premise 2).
Differing opinions (Premise 3) lead to contradictions (Premise 5).
Contradictions (Premise 5) imply that many assertions cannot all be true (Premise 6).
Consequently, the vast majority of assertions are false (Premise 7).
Given your empirical observations as true, your argument is logically sound.