• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong"

Meditation the Tenth

In our original analogy, in the title and chorus of the pop tune from 1927, "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong."

"Wrong" about what? About sexual mores.

Was that song about Frenchmen or was that song about sexual mores?

The subject of the sentence is, of course, "Frenchmen" ; in grammatical terms it is about Frenchmen, strictly speaking.

But the subject of the song is sexual mores, the sexual mores of Frenchmen, and by extension sexual mores in general.

Likewise, the grammatical subject of the sentence "200 million Tom Cruise fans can't be wrong" is of course "Tom Cruise fans."

"Wrong" about what?

About Tom Cruise?

Or about their being fans of Tom Cruise?

Is this "song" simply saying that "Tom Cruise fans know what they like"?

What, in that case, is the actual state of affairs in correspondence to which the proposed state of affairs is made true?
​
 
Meditation the Eleventh

If the sentence "X can't be wrong" means that X know what they like, then in that case the proposed state of affairs is X can't be wrong and the actual state of affairs is that in which X know what they like.

The truth of the sentence lies in the correspondence between the proposed state of affairs and the actual state of affairs.

If the sentence "X know what they like" means that X know their own minds, then in that case the proposed state of affairs is X know what they like and the actual state of affairs is that in which X know their own minds.

The truth of the sentence lies in the correspondence between the the proposed state of affairs and the actual state of affairs.​
 
Last edited:
Meditation the Twelfth

If Meditation the Eleventh fairly unpacks the expression "X can't be wrong"; and if "X can't be wrong" means that X know what they like; and if the expression "X know what they like" means that X know their own minds; and if truth is taken as the correspondence between a proposed state of affairs and an actual state of affairs; then "X can't be wrong" is true on every value of the variable X.

On the above analysis the expression "X can't be wrong" simply maps onto a mental state, a taste, opinion, belief, hope, desire, etc., and is always true, if trivially true, assuming a rational mental state. A rational being can't be wrong about his/her own taste, opinion, belief, etc.
The proposed state of affairs is a proposed mental state, and the actual state of affairs is the actual mental state.

Whether or not the mental state maps onto an actual state of affairs outside the actual mental state is a question that the above analysis does not reach, and doesn't have to reach in order to establish the truth of the assertion "X can't be wrong."​
 
Meditation the Thirteenth

Or have we followed grammar down the rabbit hole?

Must our consideration of the meaning of "X can't be wrong" necessarily take into account the implied "about Y" for its proper understanding?

But we have already acknowledged that X can be wrong about Y.

Does this broader understanding entail that "X can't be wrong" is false on its face? False on every value of Y?

But in common parlance asserting "X can't be wrong" is not intended to assert a falsehood; the assertion intends to convey a truth.

We seem to have reached an impasse in these meditations.

Is there a way forward for us?​
 
Meditation the Fourteenth

Perhaps the way forward lies in combing the two insights.

Perhaps "X can't be wrong" means "X can't be wrong (about Y)" even though X can be wrong about Y.

What sense can be made of this apparent contradiction?

Is there perhaps something in the tone of the assertion that can help us here?​
 
Meditation the Fifteenth

Does "X can't be wrong (about Y)" possess an inherent tone of voice?

Is that tone of voice ironic? Satirical? Matter-of-fact? Argumentative?

Does it mean to state the obvious, or does it mean call the obvious into question?

In the song from 1927 (OP) the satire is aimed, not at the French, but at Americans of the flapper era and their exaggerated pride in their "free" life style.

Does the generic phrase therefore intend criticism not of the X, but of a class of variables to which X is opposed?

Does the generic phrase mean to puncture the pride of some non-X concerning a belief about Y?

Such a reading puts the arithmetic back in the semantics, doesn't it?

And rather than the actual state of affairs in correspondence to which a proposed state of affairs is made true, Y becomes the proposed state of affairs about which the X can't be wrong.

Quite a difference in semantics here.​
 
Last edited:
Meditation the Sixteenth

We must, it seems, consider the generic expression in its entirety:

"(So many) X can't be wrong (about Y)"

And we must, it seems, look for the truth of the expression, not in any correspondence between some proposed Y and some actual Y,
but rather in the relation of so many to a proposed Y, where any actual Y remains indeterminate or indeterminable.​
 
Meditation the Seventeenth

Last night I dreamed I went down to the lake to swim.

I know I had this dream.

I remember dreaming that I went down to the lake to swim.

I can tell you about this dream.

I cannot show you this dream, however.

I cannot prove to you that I had this dream.

Even science, had my brain been recorded during sleep, could not tell that I went down to the lake to swim in the dream.

That I went down to the lake to swim last night in a dream is known only to me personally.

It is a kind of personal knowing.​
 
Meditation the Eighteenth

Now imagine that 24,000 members of DP had the same dream.

Imagine that 24,000 members of DP dreamed that they went down to the lake to swim.

Think about it.

Then imagine that 5.8 billion people on earth had the same dream.​
 
JHiilsK.png
 
I think your 17th and 18th meditations really brought the point home... and how certain things can be known as truth by many individuals, yet not be provable... It's quite a lot of people having the same personal, unprovable knowing...
 
gfm7175 said:
I think your 17th and 18th meditations really brought the point home... and how certain things can be known as truth by many individuals, yet not be provable... It's quite a lot of people having the same personal, unprovable knowing...
Click to expand...
This escapes the cramped atheist imagination.
 
Casper said:
Is it 50 Million or 50 Billion, both are quoted in the OP, there is a huge difference.....
Click to expand...

The number is irrelevant unless truth lies in the majority? Millions and millions of Jews, Hindu's, Muslims and Christian are all great in numbers, but their beliefs are not compatible. Are they all right because of their shear numbers in size?
 
Davey said:
The number is irrelevant unless truth lies in the majority? Millions and millions of Jews, Hindu's, Muslims and Christian are all great in numbers, but their beliefs are not compatible. Are they all right because of their shear numbers in size?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the thread, Reverend. Your thoughts on the topic are most welcome.
 
"5.8 Billion Believers Can't Be Wrong"

Q.E.D.

BerpIxw.jpg


My Eli before the high shelf fell and he grew older.


Peace​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom