Another in a series of posts of notes from a book by a college professor of mine at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I took the class “General Semantics” from Kenneth G. Johnson in the early 1980s, and found it to be the most enlightening class I ever took. I hope you get something out of it, too.
XIV.
The structure of our language leads us to confuse facts with inferences and/or assumptions. We have no grammatical constructions to distinguish what we have experienced and what we have assumed. It is easy to say and think we know, when sometimes we are only guessing. The same words may describe or infer, depending on the context. And we learn to perceive and think with this confusion.
Some confusion might be avoided if we reserve the word “fact” for statements of observation.
A statement of fact is made after observation or experience and is confined to what one observes or experiences. Only a limited number of statements of fact can be made about something. They represent a high degree of probability (close to certainty). We tend to get agreement when it is possible to make factual statements about a situation.
Statements of inference can be made anytime — before, during or after observation. They go beyond observation or experience. An unlimited number of them can be made. They represent some degree of probability. We can expect disagreement if only inferential statements can be made in a situation.
We have no choice but to make assumptions and inferences. It is impossible to observe, check and test everything. But it is important to know when we are making assumptions and inferences.
We tend to have more confidence in our inferences when they are based on multiple observations and when several of them all point to the same conclusion. For example, the atomic theory is built out of converging inferences of chemists and physicists.
XV.
The structure of our language pushes up toward either/or evaluations. Because our language is loaded with polar (either/or) terms, it is easy to talk about extremes. Word pairs that fall into this category are: good/bad, old/young, strong/weak, successful/unsuccessful, etc. It takes effort to talk in terms of degrees (of good or bad or strength or weakness, etc.)
Most of the things we deal with are more accurately mapped by statistical distribution than by either/or terms. Are you good or bad? Rich or poor? Your answers to these questions depend on your frame of reference. Scientists, especially, recognize degrees of differences and degrees of probability.
Either/or evaluations occur frequently in the thinking of children, in political speeches, in arguments, etc.
We often create problems for ourselves by thinking in either/or terms and seeking vaguely defined goals.
Here are some of the characteristics of “People in Quandaries”:
*They strive for unobtainable or vaguely defined goals. For instance, they may want to be healthy or wealthy or normal or successful or loved, etc. These are good goals when they are meaningful. However, People in Quandaries tend not to define their goals in specific terms. So, they can never know when they’ve achieved them.
*They consider these goals in either/or terms. They are either successful or unsuccessful, happy or sad, righ or poor, etc. They seem to be unaware of the possibilities in between.
*Because the alternative is so unacceptable, they feel they must achieve their goal.
*They are likely to become frustrated because anything short of complete success (whatever that means!) is considered failure. Anything short of complete “goodness” is considered bad, for example.
*Continued frustration is likely to lead to demoralization … a “what’s the use” attitude.
