Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Semantics and accurate language

  1. #1
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Semantics and accurate language

    As some of you know, English is not my first language. My questions below may not be related to language differences, but to the accurateness of how something is said or written.... anyway, we have some writers here, and I'd like to have some feedback on these four questions.

    Question A:
    Please look at these two sentences:

    #1) The only reliable source of nutrient X is product (group) Y. (What X and Y is doesn't matter here, but here's one example to make this look less like a mathematical formula: "The only reliable sources of protein are animal products").

    #2) Due to the only reliable information we are aware of, we can currently only recommend product(s) Y if you need nutrient X.

    To me, it definitely looks like 'reliable' in the first sentence is pointing to the nutrient source itself, and not to the lack of information or lack of trust in the information that's available.

    In sentence two, 'reliable' is pointing to both the information the person has gathered, and also evaluating how reliable the information is.

    Do you agree? Are there any semantic reasons that this would be different in English?


    Question B: Due to the use of 'only' in "The only reliable source of nutrient X is product Y", this sentence also describes that all other products than Y does not contain a reliable source of X. Do you agree?


    Question C: If someone has claimed that Y (let's say that Y = cow's milk) in some cases is not a reliable source for nutrient X (eg. calcium), doesn't #1 suggest that they know that this info is wrong? (Unless, of course, if the person who claim this haven't heard these about these claims, and therefore comes up with a statement assuming that there is no conflicting research out there)?

    Question D: if someone claims that there are other reliable sources of nutrient X than Y, doesn't statement #1, due to how it's written (and also #2) claim that all this information is wrong? I think it does, because if some of this information would be right, there would be other reliable X sources than Y.

    Sometimes it doesn't matter if one isn't using precise and accurate language, but in other situations - like when informing about nutrition - it's potentially very important. There are many myths about non-vegan vs. vegan nutrition, and it's easy to contribute to keeping these myths alive if the language we use is inaccurate. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by Korn; Jan 16th, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Edited 'C'

  2. #2
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Quote Korn View Post

    Question A:
    Please look at these two sentences:

    #1) The only reliable source of nutrient X is product (group) Y. (What X and Y is doesn't matter here, but here's one example to make this look less like a mathematical formula: "The only reliable sources of protein are animal products").

    #2) Due to the only reliable information we are aware of, we can currently only recommend product(s) Y if you need nutrient X.

    To me, it definitely looks like 'reliable' in the first sentence is pointing to the nutrient source itself, and not to the lack of information or lack of trust in the information that's available.

    In sentence two, 'reliable' is pointing to both the information the person has gathered, and also evaluating how reliable the information is.

    Do you agree? Are there any semantic reasons that this would be different in English?

    Technically you're probably right. However in practice I believe that people do use the "only reliable source is..." formula to cover the situation where they don't know enough to be sure that other sources are reliable. So, correctly or incorrectly, sentence one might be used to mean "products A, B, or C may contain X but we don't yet have enough information to rely on them as a source."

    Sentence two (although the English isn't quite right) would be a more precise way of putting it. I would say something like "Because of a lack of reliable information about other possible sources, Y is the only source of X that we can currently recommend."

  3. #3
    frugivorous aubergine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orbiting London
    Posts
    1,474

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Korn - If I'm following correctly I agree with your assumptions.

  4. #4
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Sorry, ran out of time.

    B: see answer to A; if they are using sentence one in the loose way I suggested they may be saying that they lack reliable information about the alternative sources.

    C: again I think they may be saying that they don't know if the other person's claim is reliable.

    D: I think it implies either that the information is wrong or that the speaker doesn't know enough to be confident that it's right.

  5. #5
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Quote Korn View Post
    ...
    Question A:
    Please look at these two sentences:

    #1) The only reliable source of nutrient X is product (group) Y.

    #2) Due to the only reliable information we are aware of, we can currently only recommend product(s) Y if you need nutrient X.

    To me, it definitely looks like 'reliable' in the first sentence is pointing to the nutrient source itself, and not to the lack of information or lack of trust in the information that's available.

    In sentence two, 'reliable' is pointing to both the information the person has gathered, and also evaluating how reliable the information is.

    Do you agree? Are there any semantic reasons that this would be different in English?
    To me, yes, sentence #1 makes a definitive statement as to the source of X.
    Sentence #2 points to the information gathered, but to me it doesn't show how reliable the information is.

    Question B: Due to the use of 'only' in "The only reliable source of nutrient X is product Y", this sentence also describes that all other products than Y does not contain a reliable source of X. Do you agree?
    Yes, no other product contains a reliable source of X.
    Question C: If someone has claimed that Y may or may not be reliable, doesn't #1 suggest that they know that this info is wrong (unless the person who claim this haven't heard these about these claims)?
    This is new information since nobody claims that Y may not be reliable.
    Question D: if someone claims that there are other reliable sources of nutrient X than Y, doesn't statement #1, due to how it's written (and also #2) claim that all this information is wrong? I think it does, because if some of this information would be right, there would be other reliable X sources than Y.
    But nobody makes claims about other sources of X.
    Sometimes it doesn't matter if one isn't using precise and accurate language, but in other situations - like when informing about nutrition - it's potentially very important. There are many myths about non-vegan vs. vegan nutrition, and it's easy to contribute to keeping these myths alive if the language we use is inaccurate. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance!
    Eve

  6. #6
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Thanks!

    I've edited the text in C to better reflect what I really wanted to ask about (Sorry for the confusion!):

    If someone has claimed that Y (let's say that Y = cow's milk) in some cases is not a reliable source for nutrient X (eg. calcium), doesn't #1 suggest that they know that this info is wrong? (Unless, of course, if the person who claim this haven't heard these about these claims, and therefore comes up with a statement assuming that there is no conflicting research out there)?
    This is how I interpret #1 (using the example of milk and calcium).

    The only reliable source of calcium (nutrient X) is cow's milk (Y).

    Now, some people claim that milk is not a good source for calcium. In this context, it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. Lets just say that there is some disagreement about that topic. If someone claims that cow's milk IS a reliable calcium source, he either doesn't know that there are people who disagree in this, or he knows, but choose not to mention it - or has done some research and have come to the conclusion he has, and decides that he doesn't want to mention that this is a topic that is being discussed. In other words - to me, it looks like "The only reliable source of calcium is cow's milk" either ignores conflicting information, and/or is potentially wrong. This sentence doesn't actually only say "I don't know" - to me it looks like a disagreement in the reports that claim something else that 'milk is a reliable source of calcium', because the sentence claims that milk IS a reliable calcium source. It doesn't say 'Some will disagree, but IMO milk is a reliable calcium source'.

  7. #7
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Question D again:

    If someone claims that there are other reliable sources of nutrient X than Y, doesn't statement #1, due to how it's written (and also #2) claim that all this information is wrong? I think it does, because if some of this information would be right, there would be other reliable X sources than Y
    I'll use the animal products/protein example again:

    If someone claims that there are other reliable sources of protein than animal products, doesn't (#1)"The only reliable sources of protein are animal products", and also (#2) "Due to the only reliable information we are aware of, we can currently only recommend animal products if you need protein" claim that all this information is wrong?
    #1 says that "The only reliable sources of protein are animal products", it doesn't mention that there are people who claim otherwise, or that there are conflicting information about this (not a good example anymore, because nowadays people seem to understand that vegan food can be used as a reliable protein source).

    Remember: this is about 'reliable sources' (like plants, supplements or animal products), not about 'reliable studies'.

    Most nutritionist know that plants can be used as reliable protein sources, so - using this example - there are lots of people who actually claim that there are other (X) reliable sources than animal products (Y). To me, "The only reliable sources of protein are animal products" implies a claim that 'those who claim something else are wrong' (or lack of knowledge about the disagreements about this topic). We can't blame laymen for lack of knowledge, but if a nutritionist eg. claims that the only reliable source of protein is meat, I would assume that he has studied the topic and disagree with those who have come to there conclusions. The important part is of course that 'reliable' is used about the nutrient sources (meat, nuts, beans...) and not about the reliability of the studies, and claims that non-meat sources are NOT reliable, as opposed to saying that 'some studies claim that beans can be used as reliable protein sources, but I don't trust these studies'. As you say, Harpy, I'm sure this has to do with using language 'in the loose way'.

    But nobody makes claims about other sources of X.
    Well, in some cases, they do. Remember, anything could replace X and Y...

    Now, the sentence "Due to the only reliable information we are aware of, we can currently only recommend animal products if you need protein"...

    I think it implies either that the information is wrong or that the speaker doesn't know enough to be confident that it's right.
    This makes sense - and (unless the person aren't aware of conflicting studies or opinions) the sentence also claims something about the reliability of the studies that claim that eg. milk (Y) is a reliable source of calcium (X). The writer indirectly says that he trusts some sources more than others; he trusts studies which claim that eg. milk is a reliable source of calcium, but not those who claim that non-milk products are reliable sources of calcium. And (this is maybe more important): he doesn't mention that there is disagreement about the topic.

    Not mentioning something can be be very misleading - eg. in this example, claiming that milk is the only reliable source of calcium could be misleading if there would be lots of people who thought that they needed milk for calcium. When there's room for interpretation, the context is also important; eg. the claim that milk is the only reliable source for any nutrient would be extra misleading if the person who stated this would be an 'anti-milk activist'. People would expect him not to tweak or exaggerate anything in 'the wrong direction' (read: in a direction that would make his own message less likely to be taken seriously).

    Now, what if we imagine a sci-si scenario and replace X and Y with eg. 'nutrient pills' and 'nutrients'? If someone would claim that the only reliable source of nutrients are nutrient pills, he would also imply that no food can be used as a reliable source for nutrients. Again, the difference is that he doesn't say 'I don't know' or 'I know there are other opinions out there, but I disagree with these studies'. He talks about the sources (which he may or may not know enough about), not about his possible lack of knowledge or the lack of reliable studies.

    Before you think that this only has theoretical value (or is that too late?): I'll soon get to why and when I think a precise language is extra important...

  8. #8
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    I find this all very confusing.

    I posted this in another thread and Korn referred me to this thread.

    Quote Risker View Post
    And because there are no reliable plant based sources of B12.
    The meaning I meant by this was that you can't rely on any plant sources to provide you with B12. It's not saying that no plants contain B12, just that you can't rely on it because it hasn't been proven to be reliable.

    I'm not sure what other meaning could be inferred by what I wrote.

  9. #9
    leedsveg
    Guest

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Quote Risker View Post
    I find this all very confusing.

    I posted this in another thread and Korn referred me to this thread.

    The meaning I meant by this was that you can't rely on any plant sources to provide you with B12. It's not saying that no plants contain B12, just that you can't rely on it because it hasn't been proven to be reliable.

    I'm not sure what other meaning could be inferred by what I wrote.
    For what it's worth Risker, I understood you.

    Leedsveg

  10. #10
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Yes, I assumed that was what you meant as well Risker, and I would agree with it.

    We aren't ruling out the possibility that some plant sources will be established to be reliable in future - I suppose for 100% unambiguity we could say "There are no plant sources of vitamin B12 that are currently known to be reliable", bit of a mouthful though.

  11. #11
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    To say that there are no reliable plant based sources of B12, or no good British cooks, or no entertaining German comedians, one would have to know about all those plants, cooks and comedians, and figure out if they are reliable, good or funny. The list of plants that have been properly tested for bioactive B12 is very short.

    And it's probably going to remain quite short - for generations to come. This is because statements - not backed up by any facts I'm aware of - from people who otherwise would be considered knowledgable *and* have no reason to spread that there's no useful B12 in plants - keep posting that no plants can ever be considered as reliable B12 sources.


    you can't rely on any plant sources to provide you with B12. It's not saying that no plants contain B12
    'Reliable' - in this context - is used about the plants (read: about their reliability as a B12 source), not about how reliable our knowledge about these plants how reliable the research that has been performed on plants and B12 is.


    Many/most readers of such a statement will assume that enough studies have been performed on plants, using scientific methods, to come ip with a conclusion about B12 levels in all plants.
    They'll probably also assume that if such a statement comes from a vegan or vegan organization, there simply can't be any reliable plant based sources of B12 out there, because these people represent a group which would see a lot of support for their cause if it could be documented that B12 can be found in plants - either today or before our water/soil and lifestyle was as sanitized as it is today.

    If vegans support such a statement, primarily promoted by a group of people which haven't even tried to document their statement (they keep saying "more research is needed"), the end result is that it will take even longer before enough proper studies will be performed on plants as a reliable B12 source.

    If I would be a non-vegan researcher/scientist and visit a vegan site to find that it states that there are no reliable B12 sources in the kingdom of plants... and combine that, in my head, with considering likely it was that they would claim this if they weren't 100% sure that they could back up this claim by proper research, I'd probably just drop any possible plans I had about investing time on real research in active B12 in plants.

    Please look at these two statements from The Vegan Society:

    Can one live on a plant diet alone?
    Yes. All the nutrients we need can be
    obtained from cereals, beans and peas,
    nuts and seeds, fruit and vegetables
    and fortified foods. Vegan diets are
    used by athletes in training with
    notable success.
    What about vitamin B12?
    All vitamin B12 comes from bacteria.
    Vegans taking adequate amounts of
    B12 are less likely to suffer from B12
    deficiency than elderly meat eaters,
    who often lose the ability to absorb
    B12 from meat. To promote optimal
    health, in our modern sanitised world
    it is important to get at least three
    micrograms of B12 per day from
    fortified foods or supplements.
    How can anyone visiting their site trust an organization putting both these statements on their site?

    And - to those of you who insist that there's enough research out there to come up with a general comment about how reliable the plants on this planet are as B12 sources: Please post a list of plants that have been tested properly for bioactive B12....
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  12. #12
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    Quote Korn View Post
    'Reliable' - in this context - is used about the plants, not about our knowledge about these plants or the (lack of) research that has been performed on plants and B12.
    Reading it like that makes no sense and I can't imagine anyone would. That suggests that there are such things as reliable plants and non-reliable plants, what does that even mean?

    Assuming it means that there are no plant based sources of B12 at all is just that, an assumption. I personally don't feel there's a need to compensate for peoples assumptions by being overly cautious about the wording I choose to use.

    It's possible to overthink these things.

  13. #13
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Semantics and accurate language

    That suggests that there are such things as reliable plants and non-reliable plants, what does that even mean?
    In this context, reliable is about plants as a B12 source. I edited my text to make that clearer.
    I think the problem with some info coming from vegan sites is that it's basically preaching to the choir - to people that have decided that they'll be vegans no matter if studies find that living on a vegan diet would involve a higher health risk than living on a standard diet.

    When a vegan site pretty much claims that no plants ever that can be considered reliable B12 sources, many will think - if they know how important B12 is for human health - that going vegan as such (and not necessarily only in our 'sanitized' world can be hazardous for their heath unless they also take supplements. This isn't a theory I have, I've seen and heard it many times. "But where do you get your nutrients from?" is also (one of) the most common comments vegans get according to our "Top 50: Comments from non-vegans" poll.

    I'm not people surprised that people come up with comments like that if they hear the "Eat pills or die" way of promoting vegan diet from certain vegan websites. I remember someone mention, last year, that they more or less left some Vegan Society event due to the intensive pill pushing approach from the VS rep.

    And it's not only about B12. I saw this clip on Vegan Society's website not long ago, where they talk about nutrition and mention calcium, this way: "People are often concerned with calcium, which you can get from fortified food". So... they have made one video about nutrition and suggest fortified food when they discuss calcium - what are they thinking?? Are they thinking?

    It's possible to overthink these things.
    Sure, but I'm against "anti-marketing", and after all - it may be better to 'overthink' than to not think at all. But I don't se this as overthinking.

    If I'd start a company, organization... I'd want to present my stuff in a true, honest way, with a positive attitude and base my promotion on a trust that whatever I deliver is something I'm proud of. If they talk about the reliability of B12 found in plants (which there's almost no proper research on) they could simply say that there's too little research on this. When they present calcium as something which you "can get from fortified food", newbies will assume that you need fortified food to get calcium. It's like making a commercial for a car on TV and mention that the car may break easily, and that you can get it repaired if you need to.

    Lots of people don't read articles if theres' a video version covering the same topic (on a site), and the way behind how two particular vegan sites on internet discuss nutrition is ridiculous. It seems to be designed to push people away from the cause they want to support. I truly don't understand why someone wanting to present a vegan diet to a group of people whose main comment is known as "But where do you get your nutrients from?" with calcium as something one "can get" from fortified food and discuss B12 the way they do.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •