Posted by Recently, I listened to a Korean communist woman being interviewed about mathematics. She explained how Westerns non-communist logic and science are all wrong. The interviewer responded by asking her if she believed that 1 + 1 = 2. Her response was approximately this: “If you add one drop of water to another drop of water, you do not get two drops of water but one bigger drop of water.” Hence, the equation of 1 + 1 = 2 must be wrong and all math built on this must also be wrong.
What she performed is called a ‘semantic shift’. The term ‘plus’ is equivocal. This means that it can relate to different concepts depending on the context. First, she relates it to numerical addition. When we say, “one plus one” in a purely numerical sense, we are operating within the context of arithmetic where one numerical value plus one numerical value is two. This is a straightforward numerical operation. The identity of each numerical value is preserved and the operation is based on the mathematical proof of complete induction, which proves that each integer varies from each preceding and each subsequent integer by the same amount or that the numerical distance between all integers is the same.
Subsequently, the Korean lady related the term ‘plus’ to the concept of physical fusion. However, when we physically combine two water drops, we are not adding them in a numerical sense, but we are merging two physical entities into one. The result is indeed one larger drop, not two separate drops. This is a semantic shift from arithmetic to a physical or conceptual merging.
The same semantic shift can be performed with eggs. We can add two eggs numerically by laying them side by side in a bowl. We can also “add” them by breaking them and making a two-egg omelet. The first operation is math. The second is cooking.
The statement of the Korean lady is misleading because it exploits the equivocal character of the terms ‘plus’ and ‘addition’. Misleading statements like this one are found with increasing frequency in public statements and political debates. They are mostly based on the incorrect or confusing use of terms and concepts. The constant and often deliberate confusion of sex and gender is a good example. So is the argument that women should have an unlimited right to abort their fetus because a woman should have the sole right to determine what happens with her belly or body.
This argument is based on the implicit assertion that a fetus is part of a woman’s body. Even though a fetus is inside a woman’s body and temporarily physiologically connected with it, is not an organ of the woman’s body like the liver or the kidneys. To place sole and total power over life and death of a newly developing human being in the hands of a pregnant woman because she should have control over “her” body is a fallacy.
If more Americans practiced more logical thinking and had more knowledge of basic physical and biological facts, hopefully, fewer Americans would elect nincompoops into public office.