Dictionary
Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order.(1)
Dictionaries have long earned a reputation for being prescriptive, that is, its contents outline what has become established or accepted as true. This is an epistemological claim asserting that TRUTH flows forth from linguistic representations of symbols interpreted by the brain. This is an ideological position. The opposite is true. Dictionaries are actually a collection of beliefs informed by observations that struggle to describe reality. This is metaphysical conjecture that appreciates the complex relationship between reality, truth, language and human bias. This does not eradicate the utility of dictionaries, but it should significantly alter our perspective regarding their value.
This distinction between the nature of dictionaries, prescriptive or descriptive, informs us a great deal about how reports are constructed in general. Is there intentionality embedded in human reporting? Is it making an argument or is it attempting to inform? Even if it is the latter, there is certainly an underlying presumption that whatever is being observed occurred in a manner consistent with its reporting, or that it was worthy of being covered in the first place. These are perspectives informed by a conscious prioritization of assumed accuracy and importance, neither of which are even remotely argued during reports despite the fact that they are fundamentally claims about truth. What is truth, exactly? And why do we assume it is present in any reporting, regardless of who is stating it?
Without even a minor understanding of what truth looks like, whether it is understood by professional observers well enough to report on it, and a clear depiction of the intentioned machinery at play, only a FOOL would assume that truth is present anywhere simply because they happened to bump into it.
Posted: 29 Dec 2022
(1) Saul, John Ralston, 1994, The doubter’s companion: a dictionary of aggressive common sense, Penguin Books Canada Ltd
