Comments about the book "An Inquiry into meaning and Truth" by Betrand Russell

This document contains comments about the book: "An Inquiry into meaning and Truth" by Betrand Russell. Dover Publications 1950
In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.

Contents

Introduction page 11
I What is a Word? page 23
II Sentences, Syntax, and Parts of Speech page 30
III Sentences Describing Experiences page 48
IV The Object Language page 62
V Logical Words page 78
VI Proper Names page 94
VII Egocentric Particulars page 108
VIII Perception and Knowledge page 116
IX Epistimological Premisses page 131
X Basic Propositions page 137
XIII The significance of Sentences page 170
XIV Language as Expression page 204
XXIII Warranted Assertibility page 318
Index

Reflection


Introduction

page 11

I propose to consider language in relation to two main problems, which, in preliminary and not precise tems, may be stated as follows:
I. What is meant by "empirical evidence for the truth of a proposition"?
II. What can be inferred from the fact that there sometimes is such evidence?
Both of these sentences are extremely complex, including the selection of words used.
Take the first phrase. This phrase demands that we should define the words: "empirical", "evidence", "truth", "proposition", unless we conclude, after examination, that our question has been wrongly worded.
1) That statement is wrong. If you want to say (almost) anything about that phrase these 4 words have to be clearly defined.
2) The same is true for this book.
Page 12
Our investigation must therefore begin with an examination first of words, and then of syntax.
That is correct.
In the form of theory of knowledge, we accept the scientific account of the world, not as certainly true, but as the best at present available.
To start with a certain view about the world i.e. the universe makes sense.
Page 15
And therefore naïve realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false.
And therefore the behaviourist, when he thinks he is recording observations about the outer world, is really recording observations about what is happening in him.
When all behaviorists (humans) are all recording different observations, and all think that these recording reflect something what is happening inside their brain, then this reasoning is of no importance. What is important that all make different observations.
These considerations induce doubt, and therefore lead us to a critical scrunity of what passes as knowledge.
This critical scrutiny is "theory of knowledge" in the second of the two senses mentioned above or "epistemology", as it is also called.
The definition of the word "epistemology" is important.
Page 17
Take the case of Astronomy.
In the mathematical theory of planetary motions, the logical order starts from the law of gravitation, but the historical order starts from the observations of Tycho Brahe, which led to Keplers Laws.
The epistemological
(the theory of knowledge) order is similar to the historical order, but not identical, since we cannot be content with old observations.
If we are to use them, we must first find evidence of their trustworthiness, which we can only do by means of observations of our own.
This raises the question: What is the (Newton) law of gravitation? What is it origin?
IMO this are also observations.
Page 18
I shall, throughout this book, try to avoid the consideration of logical and mathematical knowledge, which does not raise the problems that I wish to discuss.
My main problem, throughout, will be the relation of basic propositions to experiences, i.e, of the propositions that come first in the epistemological order to the occurences which, in some sense are our grounds for accepting these propositions.
My interpretation is that the study of experiences and propositions, is more important than mathematical knowledge.
When we see a shooting star and say "look", the relation is simple; but the relation of the law of gravitation to the observations upon which it is based is exceedingly complex.
From a logical point of view (comparing both parts) that is true, but from a "knowledge" point of view i.e. understanding if the law of gravitation is correct, comparing both parts does not make sense.
IMO the second part should be discussed in much more detail, because the law of gravitation involves mathematical knowledge.
Page 20
Chapters VI and VII are concerned with syntactical questions, namely "proper names" and "egocentric particulars" - i.e. words such as "this", "I", "now", which have a meaning relative to the speaker.
The concept 'now' should have a much broader meaning. It is of importance for the whole of the universe.
The theory of proper names which is suggested is important if true, in particular in connection with space and time.
Here the concept 'space and time' is used. In other parts 'space-time'. The difference should be explained.
Sugestion: Space and time are physical concepts. Space-time is a mathematical concept.

Chapter I.

What is a Word?

page 23

Page 28
Only sentences have intended effects, whereas meaning is not confined to sentences. Object words have a meaning which does not depend upon their occuring in sentences.
Page 29
At the lowest level of speech, the distinction between sentences and single words does not exist
At this level, single words are used to indicate the sensible presence of what they designate
Okay
There are sentences containing no objects-words; they are those of logic and mathematics
Important information.
But all empirical statements contain object-words is fundamental in trhe theory of empirical knowledge, since it is through them that language * enz

Chapter II.

Sentences, Syntax, and Parts of Speech

page 30

Page 33
From a logical oint of view, a proper name may be assigned to any continuous portion of space-time. (Macroscopic continuity suffices.)
"The Universe" may be regarded as a proper name for the whole of space-time
We can give a proper name to very small portions of space-time, provided they are larger enough to be noticed.
It should be mention that as part of Einstein's theory the concept space-time is a mathematical concept, which requires a that the speed of light is a constant.
Page 38
To avoid unnecesssary lengthiness, let us assume, for the moment, that there is only spoken speech.
The reason for this sentence is not clear, but becomes clear (?) in the next sentence.
Page 39
Then all words have a time order, and some words assert a time order.
IMO the words time order is wrongly used. The order of the words in any sentence is important. The order of physical events is a complete different subject.
When I hear the sentence "Brutus killed Caesar", I perceive the the time-order of the words; If I did not, I could not know that I had heard that sentence and not "Caesar killed Brutus"
And what about the sentence: "Caesar was killed by Brutus" ?
Page 45
There is still a difficulty: "near" and "far" are relative terms; enz

Chapter III.

Sentences Describing Experiences

page 48

Page 50

Chapter IV.

The Object Language

page 62

Page 65
We can now partially define object-language as a language consisting wholly of "object-words", where "object-words" are defined, logically, as words having meaning in isolation, and, psychologically, as words which have been learnt without its being necessary to have previously learnt any other words.
Specifical this last part is very important.
Page 70
Can we say: "he will know everything that can be known by observation alone, but nothing that needs inference"? enz
My interpretation is that you cannot know anything that can not be observed, in strictly physical sense. This is not true for human behaviour and animals.

Chapter V.

Logical Words

page 78

Page 89
The third kind of cases arises when we are trying to prove an inductive generalization, and also when instances lead us to discover a general proposition in mathematics. These cases are similar, except that in the latter you arrive at certainty, and in the former only at probability
True mathematics discussing the mathematical world, involves certianty. Mathematics involved with physical issues, happenings in the universe, always involve uncertainty and probability.
Let us take the latter case first.
You observe that 1 + 3 = 2^2, 1 + 3 + 5 = 3^2, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 4^2, and you say to yourself: "in some cases, the sum of the n odd numbers is n^2; perhaps this is true in all cases"
This is a clear mathematical problem in the mathematical world. And may be this comment is strange: but if this statement is true is of 'no' importance. What is important this is a clear mathematical problem.
In empirical material, a complete enumeration may sometimes be possible.
This sentence by itself raises already uncertainty. See an introduction about empiral at page 92
You discover (say) that iron and copper (*), which are metals, are good conducters (*) of electricity, and you suspect that this may be true of all metals.
Both these physical discoveries (*) require experiments, include uncertainty and cannot be understood by means of mathematics.

Chapter IX.

Epistemological Premisses

page 131

Theory of knowledge is rendered difficult by the fact that it involves psychology, logic, and physical sciences, with the result that confusions between different points of view are a constant danger.
To solve the problem of knowledge i.e. understanding and explaining; each issue, or almost identical issue, should be studied separately.
(a) Given any systematic body of propositions, such as is contained in some science in which there are general laws, it is possible, usually in a indefinite number of ways, to pick out certain of the propositions as premisses, and deduce the remainder.
It is important to know the physical details (observations, experiments) behind each general law.
Page 132
In the Newtonian theory of the solar system, for example, we can take as premisses the law of gravitation together with the positions and velocities of the planets at a given moment.
The most uncertain are the positions and velocities all at the same moment. It should be mentioned that is is rather easy to calculate the positions of our planets at the same moment, but much more difficult the positions of the stars.
Page 133
Since we can never

Chapter X.

Basic Propositions

page 137

Page 140
In logic and mathematics, the view that "truth" is a syntactical concept is correct, since it is syntax that quarantees thruth of tautologies.
The problem with this sentence is that all the words/concepts used must be clear.
In rejecting their view, as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that "truth" in emperical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.
Page 143
All theory of knowledge must start from "what do I Know?" not from "what does mankind know?"
IMO this must start from "What do We want to know?"
If I am Copernicus, I want to know
Page 140

Chapter XIII.

The significance of Sentences

page 170

The question as to what makes a sentence significant is forced upon by various problem
There are in the first place the recognized rules of syntax in ordinary languages. "Socrates is a man" is constructed in accordance with these rules, and is significant; but "is a man", considered as a complete sentence, violates the rules and is nonsensical.

Chapter XIV.

Language as Expression

page 204

Language serves three purposes: (1) to indicate facts, (2) to express the statue of a speaker, (3) to alter the state of the hearer. These three purposes are not always all present.
Important chapter to study artificial intelligentie.
Language may fail in (1) and (3): the corpse may have died a natural death, or my hearers may be sceptical. In what sense can language fail as regards (2)? Lies, mentioned above, do not failin this respect, since it is not their purpose to express the state of the speaker. Language may fail to communicate what it expresses, owing to differences between speaker and hearer in the use of language, but from the speaker's point of view spontaneous speech must express his state.
This sentence expresses the complexity of language.
I call language "spontaneous" when there is no verbal intermediary between the external stimulus and the word or words - at least this is a first approximation to what I mean by "spontaneous". It is not an adequate definition, etc
Page 205
Thus instead of saying that a stimulus is "external" we shall say it is "spontaneous" speech, the stimulus is a sensation
We must now consider what sort of intermediaries between stimulus and words are to be excluded in defining "spontaneous" speech. Take the case of a ready lie.
In any discussion you expect that speakers don't lie. In this example of speech, the issue lies, is interesting.
The schoolboy, asked angrily "who made the world?" (by his teacher NV), replied without a moment's hesitation "please, sir, it wasn't me". etc. In such a case, the stimulus to the words is not what the words mean, nor even something having a close causal connection with what the words mean; the stimulus is solely the desire to produce a certain effect upon the hearer.
Again: the use of language is complex.
Page 210
I suggest that there is a difference between the word "or" and such words as "hot" or "cat". The latter words are needed in order to indicate as well as in order to express, whereas the word "or" is needed only to express. It is needed to express hesitation.

Chapter XXIII.

Warranted Assertibility

page 318

Page 320

First, a few words of personal explanation. Any reader of the present work will, I hope, be convinced that I do not make propositions the ultimate subject-matter of inquiry, since my problem has been, throughout, the relation between events and the propositions that they cause men to assert.
Difficult sentence.
I do not, it is true, regard things as object of inquiry, since I hold them to be a metaphysical delusion; but as regards events I do not, on this point, disagree with Dr Dewey.
Okay
Again: as regards scientific hypothesis, such as quantum theory or the law of gravitation, I am willing (with some qualifications) to accept his view, but I regard all such hypotheses as a precacarious super structure built on a foundation of simpler and less dubious beliefs, and I do not find, in Dr. Dewey's works, what seems to me an adequate discussion of this foundation.
IMO the most important to make a clear disctiontion of the physical issues and the mathematical issues of any physical issue/process discussed. Of these the physical issues are the most important. As such a critical discussion of why the speed of light is constant, is important. This why must only be based on physical reasoning.

Index

object-language page 65
relation between events page 320
rules of syntax page 170


Reflection 1 - The observer.

Science (knowledge) starts by performing observations by observers and by asking questions. However that does not mean that the observers are the most important. The most important is what they are observing
A typical case is an exploding star or supernova, considering all observers which observe the same exploding star. All observers at the same distance from the star, in a sphere around the star, will observe something different. It is that knowledge you should try to capture.
The pictures of a supernova, showing a visible impression, are impressive. But that is not the most important. The most important is the distribution of all matter: visible and invisible. All this matter influences each other.
But if you consider any binary star system, its all visible and invisible matter that influences both stars (objects), even if both stars (objects) are invisible. The conclusion is that observers are no part of the physical explanation of the behavior of stars. That does not mean that comets can not loose mass when they circulate around the Sun or energy when they emit photons as visible light.

However there is an other reason why observers should not be 'trusted'. A typical case is when length contraction is observed.
Consider two obervers A and B situated at position A and B along a straight railroad track. The length of the train is l. The front of the train is at position A
At t0 the train starts to move from A to B. When the front of the train is a distance l away from observer A there is at t1 a light flash. This flash will reach observer A at t2 (which comes from the front of the train) later as t1. That means if at t1 observer A can see the front of the train this image comes from a position (earlier and) closer than l. That means observer A will observe length contraction.
For point B and observer B a rather similar situation exists. Consider at t4 the front of the train is at the same position as observer B. At that same moment t4 can observer B observe the back of the train?
If at that same moment t4 a light signal is issued from the back of the train the observer B will observe that light signal later at t5.
If at t4 the observer receives a light signal from the back of the train that signal always has been transmitted earlier at t3. That means the observer at B observes length expansion.

The next question becomes: are length contraction and length expansion some thing physical? The answer is no. It is a visible illusion.
1. Consider you stay right up, with both hands against a shoulder.
2. You stretch your left hand slowly. Your left hand represents the front of the train. Your arm represents the train. (left hand back to shoulder).
3. You stretch you right hand, vast. Now you move your right hand slowly to your shoulder. That represents an approaching train, moving towards you.
4. You turn 180 degrees and you continue to move your right hand, which now becomes your left hand, untill your left hand is completely stretched.
5. What the items 3 and 4 represents is a train which approaches you, passes you and moves away from you, at a constant speed.
6. Is there any length contraction, or expansion involved in this train. I would say: No
7. But what about the observer? The observer observes both first length expansion and then length contraction which is in physical contradiction that the physical mass of the train has not changed.
8. This is different than the observation that the time indication on a moving clock runs slower than the time indication of a clock at rest.

Lesson is that the total universe, the state of the earth, and any instant represents one physical reality.
That can also be demonstrated by an universe filled with clocks, all at rest, as part of a 3D grid, which all run synchronuous.


Reflection 2


Reflection 3


Feedback

None


If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 20 January 2025

Go Back to Book Review
Back to my home page Index