Ed, on Dec 23 1997 you wrote in Serendip,

Since Dr. Ghitis brought the verbal clarity issue up again, let me say this much: All rational thought is inherently ambiguous, but in some cases the ambiguity is trivial or simply below the level of human notice.

Ed, as you point out yourself, I was referring to verbal clarity, not to thinking, whether rational or else. Yet unambiguous writing can derive only from unambiguous thinking! I have explained here in Serendip that thinking can be a) autistic, b) realistic non-creative, or c) creative. However, for the sake of constructive dialogue, let's continue.

The only way that the human brain/mind can know reality is through perceptions: seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. But the senses can only tell us how things APPEAR at this very moment, and in the present context.
To achieve significant results, the brain must paste hundreds and thousands of various perceptions together, to form meaningful configurations that are valid for any context and moment of time. In other words, the brain, (that is, special neurons), will be able to refer to these configurations as patterns ('gestalts') in order to interpret new perceptions.

I am able to grasp the idea of what you wrote above, but this subject is without my area of dialogue. I cannot see the use for it within the frame of this Serendip site. We cannot be that exclusive. Our exclusivity is determined by the availability of a computer attached to the Internet, plus the person's interest in a pleasant site dealing with philosophical aspects that do not offer an immediate or remote pragmatic benefit. Suffice that they provide food for thought, perhaps helping somehow to easing the uncertainty inherent in negotiating the perilous curves that pop up in the course of life. Our posts might serve as warning and guiding signposts.

In the mono-chromatic sciences, where only simple structures are dealt with, it is still possible to be fairly precise in one's formulations, and still be modestly significant.

Monochromatic sciences? You mean non-anthropologic, i.e., not dealing with phenomena resulting from the presence of man on Earth's crust?

After all, in physics --for instance-- (the archetype of what I call 'mono-chromatic science') every electron in the universe is exactly alike, and so is every proton or neutron. Once you have detected an attribute of one electron, you have detected that attribute of them all. So, as long as you confine yourself solely to the verifiable attributes of electrons, it is still possible to say something useful about this one limited subject, in a fairly clear form.
But in the population sciences, no two individuals are exactly alike, and even people who outwardly do the very same thing often have different motives for their overt behavior. So, in the population sciences like economics, sociology, history, etc., rigorous precision is only possible at the most insanely trivial level of observation....

I agree with you, and you have expressed your thoughts with clear, concise, alethic, unambiguous language, because you have utilized unambiguous thinking. What you say doesn't go against my ideas, since I do not proclaim the need for 'rigurous precision' but for 'rigurous unambiguity,' in the expression of thoughts or information. Therefore I delete your following paragraph, and continue with:

...Carnap was one of the founding members of the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivist movement Dr. Ghitis admires.

Ed, I really do not 'admire' nor follow any thinker's ideas. Descartes himself, when advising not to follow blindly any 'authority's dictums, included himself as a target of that negative advice. I am ecumenical, adding to the ideas I accept, some of my own.

... Carnap decided that all meaningful verbal symbols have to be abandoned...

I am familiar with the names of many thinkers, yet I have read very little of their original creations, contenting myself with the analytic reading of extracts. That's why I am exempted from learned discussions. I believe that the majority of people with intellectual curiosity must content themselves with such approach to educated reading. What I consider necessary to stress is that, if we wish Serendip's forum to become an interesting site, clarity of language and a certain originality of thought are required. Off-line writing and editing of concise contributions are advisable.