tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post1460995510553521374..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: Solving the Problem of Representation (3)Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-9240753427604248722015-04-25T23:06:42.963+02:002015-04-25T23:06:42.963+02:00Let's say that the fact of Lorca's death c...Let's say that the fact of Lorca's death can be expressed more or less specifically <i>and</i> more or less accurately.<br /><br /><i>Lorca died.<br />Lorca was murdered.</i><br /><br />I suppose the first is actually more certain than the second. But a paragraph could be written to establish (i.e., argued for) either.<br /><br /><i>Lorca was murdered by the fascists.<br />Lorca was murdered because he was gay.</i><br /><br />These, if I understand you correctly, are getting the fact in some sense wrong, though a paragraph could be written in support of each.<br /><br /><i>It's not clear why Lorca was murdered.<br />We don't know why Lorca was killed.</i><br /><br />Notice that these differ slightly. I guess something could be made of the difference between "murdered" and "killed". But here's one that's quite wrong:<br /><br /><i>We don't know why Lorca died.</i><br /><br />In that sense—i.e., "cause of death"—the facts are pretty clear.<br /><br />To me, the important thing is to form a belief about why he was killed and by whom. Then you express that belief in your writing and hope that it's also an accurate representation of the fact.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-810571266668493652015-04-25T22:31:02.663+02:002015-04-25T22:31:02.663+02:00Like Russell says in his prologue to Witt, languag...Like Russell says in his prologue to Witt, language can be vague. How exactly do we want to represent a fact? There is a matter of scale, and a point at which more exactitude becomes less significant. Yes, a sentence would do, if it were accurate enough. A paragraph too. I am dealing with headlines today that a police document from 29 years after the death "proves" that Lorca was killed because he was a freemason and gay. Well, the document says that, and is official, but what does it prove? It is a fact that the document says this, but is it a fact that Lorca was a mason? That he was killed for this reason? Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-2255889746580572892015-04-25T22:09:06.681+02:002015-04-25T22:09:06.681+02:00Ah! Now we're getting into it. On my view, it ...Ah! Now we're getting into it. On my view, it never really makes sense to say "It would take more than a paragraph to represent" something. Any fact can be represented in, first, a sentence and, next, a paragraph. That's just what a fact is.<br /><br />You may be saying that there is no (known) fact of the matter about who killed Lorca. But you can't (if I'm right) say that the (known) fact of Lorca's murder cannot be represented in a single paragraph. If it can be represented in any amount of paragraphs, it can be represented in one. And therefore, like I say, also in a single sentence.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-44416925623011529222015-04-25T19:47:25.738+02:002015-04-25T19:47:25.738+02:00Just to clarify, there are a hundred ways of talki...Just to clarify, there are a hundred ways of talking about who killed Lorca that are not accurate. For example, "Franco killed Lorca." (another general gave the order, not Franco, it was Queipo de Llano) Franco's army killed him (it was a paramilitary, not the army itself.). The Falange arrested him (it was a paramilitary from another party, not the Falange.). So even if you know the facts, they are hard to represent in language. One case I came across recently said he was killed "because of his opposition to Franco." But he was killed for who he was before the war, not for some opposition he evinced in the month of the war that he survived. <br /><br />That's why I chose that example. Something very simple, but that would take more than a paragraph to represent accurately even with the facts before one. Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-2997403859548515142015-04-25T09:07:22.026+02:002015-04-25T09:07:22.026+02:00Indeed! I wouldn't know, but I imagine that it...Indeed! I wouldn't know, but I imagine that its easy (for you) to say "It's difficult to say who killed Lorca". It's a tenable position among Lorca scholars, right?<br /><br />A graduate student studying Lorca, then, might find herself in doubt one morning. So she tries the negation, "It's easy to say..." Then she thinks, "Okay, how would that be easy?" And she realises she'd have to commit to something like "Franco killed Lorca." If that were true, it might be easy to represent. But then she tries to imagine that paragraph and realises how wrong it would be. The various partial and conflicting facts of the murder, however, ultimately add up to support for her original sentence. And then her 27 minutes are up. Time well spent.<br /><br />One thing your sentence made me realise is that when we say that a scholar has "said" something we mean, precisely, "represented a fact in language". In ordinary language, "saying" can mean many other things. But when "Mayhew says" something, we're talking about representation.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-72051641702105958082015-04-24T21:21:25.237+02:002015-04-24T21:21:25.237+02:00I'll try this: "The matter of who killed...I'll try this: "The matter of who killed Lorca is a fact very easy to represent in language." Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.com