635
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
635 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
82251 readers
3894 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's the opinion on smoking, not praying, that differs.
In both cases you're praying and smoking at the same time, so your actions don't change, but the priest rationalizes two completely different answers based on the way the question is posed. It's just an example to show how two contradictory answers can seem rational to the same person because of the language used.
No, the priest is answering 2 different questions:
The second question does not ask if it's ok to smoke. What else they're doing doesn't impact the question.
Those aren't the same questions from the original post. You've omitted half the information given to the priest in each question.
Both questions, in their entirety, deal with smoking and praying. The subject is smoking and praying. You've reframed this as a question about smoking and a separate question about praying. That was never the case.
EDIT: minor clarification.
I've omitted half of the part that doesn't matter, as I explained in the comment. It doesn't matter what comes after them, the answers will always be the same.
"Is it okay if I smoke while doing a cartwheel?" Guess what? The answer is still no.
Why would the answer be no? Who cares if you smoke while doing a cartwheel? Who said the priest would forbid such a thing?
In both situations, a man is asking about the propriety of praying while inhaling the smoke from a cigarette. That's vital information.
The information does matter to the smoker and the priest. We're not teasting these statements for validity and we're not making our own judgements. We're examining why the priest's answer might have changed. That's all.
...The priest? I don't understand the question.
The priests answer changes because the question changes, as I've outlined above.
They aren't contradictory though. Basically what they are saying is just praying > praying + smoking > just smoking. "Okay" has different meanings in the different sentences.
But in both cases, the person is asking to do the same thing. The order of the words in the sentence doesn't change the end result, we always wind up with someone smoking and praying simultaneously, which may or may not be against God's will.
Strip away the justifications and simplify the word choices and you get this:
Given that, can you say if it is right or wrong to smoke and pray simultaneously?
And again, this is just a hypothetical scenario. In the broader context of life, religion, and tobacco use, it'll never be this simple, but it works for an example.
Now, someone might point out that by simplifying the wording, I've changed the meaning of the original statement to make it fit my argument, and that now it means something else. But that's essentially my original point, phrasing and word choices can shape our reasoning, thought processes, and how we interpret meaning in ways we aren't immediately aware of, leading us to different conclusions or even delusional thinking.
Not really. They're not just asking if they should pray and smoke simultaneously if you put them in contexts where it actually makes sense to ask those questions.
First, "pray" can mean different things, such as (1) a deep focused session, or (2) a lighter more casual session, both of which are standard definitions of the word. Since this request emphasizes prayer as the main action, (1) is most likely here. For a focused session, smoking is a distraction and not a good idea. The definition of "may" here is also subjective and not necessarily absolute, some people may consider it disrespectful, while others may still say that prayer at all is better than no prayer regardless of side actions, but it's better to not smoke.
In this sentence, definition (2) of prayer seems more likely since the main focus of the request is smoking. Which to some people this may still be considered disrespectful like in the first request, but others are supportive of more casual prayer and smoking during casual prayer isn't a problem like in focused prayer, and the idea that prayer is better than no prayer and "may" isn't absolute still applies.
Not if you're trying to prove that they're contradictory and irrational, since the context is what actually makes the words mean something. If you take away the context, then it's nothing more than shapes on a screen.
I agree with that
We're getting very forest for the trees here.
It's a thought experiment, a controlled imaginary environment used to illustrate a point. It's supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer. It's purely hypotheical and comes self contained with all the context it needs. We're testing one metaphorical variable, so that our results aren't muddled. You just went and added another half dozen for the sake of argument...
Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God's will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest's answers?
The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don't do the kind of analysis you've worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don't you think?
Good. =)
Isolating it from context doesn't make the point clearer though, it removes the point entirely. Those sentences mean absolutely nothing if you strip all context from them.
If you did want to make them contradictory, you could put them in the context of math with some English-like properties, where "pray" is a constant and "may" requests a boolean answer, in which case that claim would be true. But we are talking about "spoken" English language, not mathematics, so this application isn't relevant.
There still has to be a clear context to assign meaning to "prayer" and the complexities of English grammar (both of which are subjective). Otherwise it just becomes like the trolley problem.
Actually they do do this kind of analysis but they don't realize it. When they read the sentence, every bit of meaning they interpret from it is built off of decades of associating words, syntax, and verbal cues with meanings, all of which come from their own experiences dependent on their environment. Which means that different words and phrases have different meanings for different people, and while there are "standards" that most people speaking that language accept, even then there are still often significant differences among people following those standards and there is no objective meaning. Stripping that context would be similar to stripping those experiences away, or in other words asking the question to a baby.
I didn't strip all context from the scenario. I defined the context. It's just not the context you believe I should be using. You keep adding something that was never in my original post, then arguing against what you yourself added to try invalidate the exercise on the basis of your personal interpretation. Sorry, but that's missing the point by a wide margin and I feel it's a waste of time.
Yes. That is exactly what it's meant to be like and precisely what I've been saying.
Just like the trolley problem, it's a self-contained thought exercise. But instead of illustrating a difficult ethical choice, it demonstrates a point about language shaping reasoning.
There's nothing to be won or lost by including outside context or narrowly defining the meaning of each word to prove what is or isn't contradictory. This isn't an argument over what the language means. Your personal interpretation of the language is irrelevant, it's the priest and/or the smoker's interpretation that matters. The singular point is for you to consider how and why their answer changes.
If you believe their answer changes because they interpreted the meaning of those words differently due to the order in which they were given, that's valid. If you believe, like I do, that the answer changes because their reasoning was shallow and contradictory, also valid. If you believe the answer didn't change and the smoker misunderstood, once again, valid. What conclusion can we draw here, what's common to all of these? They all show that changing the question changes our thought process and how we interpret meaning.
If you dislike my example this much, create your own. It makes no difference to me.
Just invent your own scenario where changes to the way a question is phrased leads a person to two different and contradictory conclusions, and use that example to briefly examine how language can shape our reasoning. That's all we need here. Digressions on language, meaning, Boolean logic, and speaking to infants will only cloud the issue.
You're the one who's been calling it contradictory.
You said it was "contradictory" and "completely different" and implied it was not "rational". The only way to prove that is to define what the language means.
You made up a scenario that can't exist in real life by making each word only have one definition to the priest/smoker, not clarifying what definitions the priest/smoker have and what the grammar means to them, then asserting that they would answer the question differently based on your personal interpretation of the words (which you haven't proved that they would based on their definitions of the words). It's nonsense and doesn't tell us anything about real-life behavior because the premise is flawed.
In both cases, there is no conclusion due to the lack of context. That is their similarity.
You haven't come up with a scenario that actually proves that.
If we take your example, add in the context of an average English speaker but with the assumption that the religion only has one way to pray, the priest understands that smoking while praying is problematic, and the priest understands that praying while smoking is helpful, but has never put the two ideas together, then the answers could be contradictory. But that is because of a flawed thought pattern with different ideas being activated by the two different questions with different focal points, not because of the sentences themselves.
Take a priest who has put those ideas together. Then because the priest understood that praying while smoking is helpful, the priest's religion is probably not strict about it, so the priest could logically assume non-strict definitions of the word "may" (because the strict definition doesn't apply here) and that the main action of the sentence is mandatory, then give those responses as a ranking based on what is ideal so they aren't contradictory.
If the religion does strictly prohibit smoking and praying simultaneously, then the priest would only answer "yes" to either of those questions if they didn't know or remember that fact, they were distracted, they were lying intentionally, or they were in a mentally unstable state that caused them to say "yes" for a different reason.