I heard this once from the professor in a first-year philosophy class in college. I got the sense that he was fed up with the claim by those unable to clearly articulate the point of view they were trying to express that “I know what I mean but I just can’t put it into words” and the like.
What do you think about this?
I agree with the sentiment, although there are certainly cases where whatever I’m trying to think through isn’t really worth the effort. But if I want to communicate a point of view and all I have available are words (as distinct from a painting or piece of music) then I need to be able to express what I mean in words, or I don’t have communication. Of course, it doesn’t guarantee you will understand me, but without that sort of articulation there isn’t really any chance that you will.
It’s a little unfair to people who don’t have the advanced vocabulary and jargon to express certain ideas.
Just as one example, lots of people don’t like it when criminals “get off on a technicality,” but they may not know enough law to comprehend what “technicality” means in the criminal justice system. You can ask them, “What technicality are you thinking of,” and not get an answer, because they don’t know enough to zero in on the exclusionary evidence rule, or peremptory challenges to jurors.
Lots of people have entirely valid opinions, which they are not well-enough educated to write out in the form of a school essay. They really do know what they mean; they just don’t have the language tools to say it.
It gets “iffy” when their ideas are wrong. “Why are there still apes?”
Definitions of nearly all words have a fuzziness. For example, does the word “dinosaur” include birds? Does everybody mean the same thing if they use “can” instead of “may”? Does a “car ferry” transport automobiles, or just railroad rolling stock? Is “picture” a synonym for “movie” always, sometimes, or never? If sometimes, when?
I don’t know if I agree. I think if you understand the basic concept, you can explain it even if you don’t have the specialized vocabulary. A specialized vocabulary just lets you be more concise.
I agree with Little Nemo and with the OP’s prof. The ability to explain one’s ideas doesn’t depend on having a large vocabulary; it depends on understanding one’s idea and being able to express it clearly. Simpler words are actually better.
As a lawyer, I’m most happy if I can explain a legal concept to a non-lawyer, avoiding technical terms as much as possible, and they get it.
Personally, I don’t think the “technicality” idea is a very good example. What it normally means, when unpacked, is that the speaker is saying that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is a mere technicality. I classify that with “why are there still apes?”
Somewhat ironically, I agree with the basic sentiment to an extent, but I would not go so far as to phrase it in such absolute terms.
Communication is not always as black-and-white as this professor makes it sound. How many people have you known, and how many posts on this board have we all read, that express the conviction that they have explained themselves with perfect clarity, only to leave their audience scratching their heads? Let’s get Socratic here, Prof; asking questions, exchanging ideas, refining arguments, etc.
And if you want to know if someone has successfully expressed himself, you don’t ask the person who was talking, you ask the person who was listening. Heck, the Time Cube guy could put his ideas into words.
I am a very visual person. I can picture, for example, solutions to problems quite clearly. But to be able to express that to someone else is sometimes very hard.
Back in college, when I tutored, it was especially rough at first to explain to students certain non-obvious but basic ideas in Physics or Math. But after a few terms of doing it, I learned how to explain things better.
My knowledge of the material didn’t change at all, just my ability to express it.
As a college professor and researcher, I’ve gone through thousands of similar situations at all levels.
I am not a verbal person, and this is evident when I’m giving someone directions. I will know exactly where the place is, but it is still difficult for me to lay out all the steps in a linear fashion so that someone else can follow them.
Once I was on a conference call. The conference leader wanted everyone’s feedback on a set of questions. One of the questions threw up a red flag for me, and I had to spend a very awkward five minutes trying to explain to the group—a group comprised of individuals who didn’t know me from Eve–why the question needed to be revised. When I say awkward, I mean AWKWARD. There was nothing but crickets as I rambled and rambled. I could almost feel the second-hand embarrassment through the phone. I wanted to die!
But finally someone chimed in and agreed with me, and acted as my translator for the entire group. Then the conference leader saw the light and agreed to make changes. I apologized for having such a non-linear mind, and everyone laughed–which made me feel less like a fool for some reason.
I could have sent my feedback to the group in writing, which is my preferred mode of communication. But it was important for me to at least try to spit it out. I’ve gotten a bit better with coordinating my brain and my mouth, but I still think this is a major weakness of mine.
The saying is wrong in theory, but pragmatically speaking, it is true. If people can’t understand what you’re saying, then you will be treated as if you don’t know what you’re talking about. I think it is important for a student to hear these words so they know how important is to communicate effectively.
If I can’t explain something that I know to you, its your fault, not mine. It’s not my lack of understanding of the matter, it’s your inability to form the same cognitive idea that i already have clearly in my mind. It’s like “shop talk” – two people with a good knowledge of their field can discuss something in a way that there is mutual comprehension, but a bystander would fail to understand it. It’s the bystander’s failure, not the shop-talkers who are making their statements with perfect clarity.
This becomes even more vivid with personal emotions. I have a friend who is dying of cancer, and doesn’t expect to live out the year. She is one of the most articulate people I’ve ever known, but how does she explain to me how she feels, in a way that I can understand it? She can’t, but the deficiency is in me, not her.
I totally disagree with most of that statement except the part before the end and after the middle and the beginning because otherwise it doesn’t correspond to the latter portion of the earlier circumstances that didn’t really happen the first time.
This is a very interesting topic. I have a particular interest in this as the book I am working on is based on advocacy of good conceptualizers who may be poor communicators. It is a fictional three part series starting with the “Collaboration” and then followed by " Proof of Concept" and lastly “Fertile Grounds”
The premise is based on the power of great writers and communicators being connnected up with great conceptualizers and all tied together via a group we call the evaluators. I know it sounds crazy but the longer I work on it the more excited I become with it.
That is very interesting, and I can think of a number of great conceptualizers with poor communication skills. Can you tell us more about the ‘evaluators’?
I don’t agree. As was mentioned, some people are better showers than tellers. In addition, a person’s comfort level can affect their ability to communicate. A shy student who’d have no problem expressing his feelings in an essay might struggle to find the right words if he’s put on the spot and suddenly has the professor and other students expectantly waiting for him to say what he means.
I’m guessing these aren’t the kinds of problems addressed in a first-year philosophy course, though.
If the professor described in the OP intended this statement to be a universal law then he was wrong, but it seems more likely to me that he was talking about the class or even the specific student he was addressing. In the context of an undergraduate philosophy course then I suspect it is generally true that a student who can’t explain what they mean has not examined their own beliefs. A student might be having problems with speech/language that make it difficult to explain what they mean, but having taken undergraduate philosophy courses myself I think the most common reason why a student would be unable to present a clear argument is because they don’t actually have one.