(For the English version, please scroll down.)
「最も誠実な否定とは？」
なんか昨日久々にいっぱい人と話して思ったけど、「否定」という機能に対する理解が難しいのかねやっぱり。AはBにあるとは言えないと言うと、AはBに絶対にないとおかしいと思いたくなるらしい。実際には、AはBにないかもしれない。なんだよな。言葉にするから難しいんだと思う。数式だとわかりやすいよ。
結構その辺りは若い頃に訓練したもので、相当に厳密であるつもりなんだよな自分としては。だけどこれがやっぱりわかりづらいらしいね。とは言え単純化しようもない気がするんだけどな。実際に授業してわかってもらうしかないんじゃないの？
そこを慎重に表現してるからこそ、肝心なところで断言できると言うのもあるかな。断言自体が悪じゃないのよ。雑な議論が悪どいってことを、できればもっとわかってもらえたら嬉しいな。
ちなみに授業するとしたら
文字と記号と図示で説明すると思うね
言葉みたいな定義が曖昧なもので
どうやって共通認識作ればいいのか
けっこう困惑してしまうかな
GPTは「保留」という表現をしてたけど
じゃあ「保留」という認識がずれてたら
一生その2人の認識は一致しないわけでさ
定義をしっかりとした上で議論するから、コミュニケーションが取れるわけでさ。つまり断言できるのもここまでは100%だと、最低限示すことができたから断言できるわけだね。とは言え、それを言葉でやれって言われたら俺やっぱ自信ないもん。難しいよ言葉ってさ。
“What Is the Most Honest Form of Negation?”
Talking with a lot of people yesterday for the first time in a while made me realize something again: it’s hard for most people to grasp what the function of “negation” actually is. When I say, “You can’t say that A is in B,” some people seem to feel like it must mean, “Then A is definitely not in B—otherwise that would be weird.” But in reality, it can simply mean: A might not be in B. That’s all. I think it becomes difficult because we’re doing it in language. With equations, it’s much clearer.
I trained this kind of rigor a lot when I was younger, and I do think I’m being pretty strict about it. But it still seems hard for others to follow. Even so, I don’t feel like it can be simplified much. Maybe the only way is to actually teach it and have people understand it through a lesson.
And maybe that’s exactly why I can be decisive when it matters: because I’m careful with wording, I can still make firm claims at the crucial points. Being definitive isn’t evil. Sloppy argumentation is. I’d be happy if more people understood that.
If I were to teach it, I’d probably explain it with words, symbols, and diagrams. With language—where definitions are inherently fuzzy—how do you build a shared understanding in the first place? That honestly throws me off sometimes. GPT used the word “withhold,” but if two people don’t even share the same concept of what “withhold” means, then their understanding will never converge.
We can communicate because we define terms properly first, and then argue within those definitions. That’s why you can be definitive: you can say, “Up to this point, we’ve established 100% certainty,” and only then make a firm claim. But if someone tells me to do all of that purely in words… I’m not confident. Language is hard.
Dan Mitchel 