Re: KT boundry event


John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

UC wrote:


John Harshman wrote:
(snip)



It's not 'narrow'. It's just an explanation for those who don't read
German. He's talking about LANGUAGE and how science should leave
language alone.

But that's not what he says. He says that we can adopt terms and then
change their meanings without abandoning those terms. How is that
leaving language alone?

No, he does NOT. He says we can change the CONCEPTS to which those
terms refer! That is NOT the same thing as 'changing the meaning'.

Really? You'll have to justify that with something. Because it sure
sounds like changing the meaning to me.


How's this:

'Sunrise', 'sunset'. These are everyday terms understood by everbody.
We all know what they mean. Does the meaning change if we switch from a
terracentric universe to a heliocentric universe? No. Why? That
experience to which the terms apply is unchanged. Our understanding of
what causes that experience changes, but that is not a linguistic
change at all.

You may be right. It's certainly a small change at most, because we
never actually think about what's really happening. Hopefully, the
changes in the teleological term Sachs was talking about were greater,
though, because we are supposed to think about what's really happening
there. Note that he did indeed say that the meaning was changing.


Are you suggesting that we drop the terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset' from
our vocabulary, because they serve a discredited theory?

No, indeed I am not. I'm not suggesting we drop any term from our
vocabulary. What made you think I was?


Sachs was arguing against those who wanted to drop the term
'Zweckmässigkeit' from fear of its teleological connotations.

I understand that. But nobody is arguing against Sachs, so why did you
say that?

Because of the ID people for one.

Unlike 'influenza' or 'sunrise', there is no hint of theory in the term
'bird'.

Arguing about whether there is or isn't such a hint would be too boring.
But what does it matter whether there is theory or not?

Some here have said that the word 'bird' refers to a theory about avian
origins. It certainly does not.

I have my doubts that anyone has said this. Please quote the relevant claim.

It was a few posts ago. Someone said that 'bird' had changed its
meaning. I said no, it has not.

"The role of science is not to clarify or modify words, but rather the
concepts to which they refer."

"die Wissenschaft hat nicht die Worte, sondern die durch die
bezeichneten Begriffe zu klären und zu verändern."

"die bezeichneten Begriffe" means "the refrerenced concepts"

Yes? There's a point?

Yes. See above.

You always say that as if, somewhere above, there is an answer to my
question. And there seldom is. Not, for example, in this case.

Perhaps someone else brought that issue up.

Perhaps. Why mention it here?

It was in this thread that someone brought it up. This is become a very
long thread, and it's difficult to track down who said what.


And your claim is that Sachs is saying that referents can't change. How
does this passage support that claim? (Feel free to drop the claim if
you want.)

See above.

"Above" directly contradicts what Sachs said.

See above.

You really should drop this habit. It inhibits communication, if indeed
communication is a goal for you.

I don't see the point of repeating an answer that applies to several
points.

Perhaps you are the only one clever enough to realize that the same
answer fits all points, and will need to explain why it does.

Sigh.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.
That's not what Sachs is saying, and I never suggested that he was. I
suggested that it's what *you* were saying.







What he is asying is that It is
perfectly acceptable to update our concepts without changing the names
of things. He's referring to Darwinisim replacing telelolgy, but not
giving up teleological language.

Right. You can change the referents without changing the words. Like "bird".

No. You DON'T change either the referents or the word, but the concept
behind them. The word 'influenza' does not change; the disease (the
referent) does not change; our understanding of 'disease' changes.

This is a very narrow and limited explanation of what Sachs is saying,
and I see no justification for it. Nowhere does he say that referents
can't change.


That's because he's not discussing it at all. He's talking about
changing language to avoid connotations of teleology.

If that is indeed all he's talking about, why did you originally bring
it up? It's irrelevant to anything we were talking about.

It seemed relevant at the time. I forget now.

That's one of your problems. You say the first thing that pops into your
head, without regard to any consistent position, and this inevitably
leads you into self-contradiction.

I said I didn't recall, not that there was no good reason.

Nevertheless, you have indulged in quite a bit of self-contradiction.

It was about not allowing expressions like "birds are dinosaurs" which
is simply absurd and an abuse of vernacular language.

And what does the Sachs quote have to do with that, even if we allowed
your claim?

His point that "The role of science is not to clarify or modify words,
but rather the concepts to which they refer." "...die Wissenschaft hat
nicht die Worte, sondern die durch die bezeichneten Begriffe zu klären
und zu verändern."

Quite right, which appears to have nothing to do with "birds are
dinosaurs", since no term is being clarified or modified, just the
concept (the concept of a dinosaur, in this case) to which the word refers.

To say "birds are dinousaurs" is not the same as saying "birds are
descended from dinosuars". The problem is that 'is'.

He says that meaning can change, and he doesn't limit that
meaning change to changes in concept that don't change referents.






Likewise with 'Zweckmässigkeit' or 'design'. We refer to the
'Zweckmässigkeit' or 'design' (or 'fitness') of an animal, but that
term is understood differently. What we observe is still the same: the
functional arrangement of limbs, circulatory system, etc. is still what
we are referring to by 'Zweckmässigkeit' or 'designedness', but we
now understand that there is no supernatural 'designer', but Natural
Selection is responsible for the design.

Why do you assume that the characteristics of the specific example he
uses to illustrate his point are all necessary features of his point?

I'm interpreting his point. He's a botanist.

How is his being a botanist relevant? What does this have to do with
birds and dinosaurs, unless his point was more general than you say?

He's talking about leaving language alone.

He said nothing of the sort. He's talking about language changing.

Are you blind? Can you not READ? He's talking about KEEPING the terms,
but changing our concepts (Begriffe) to which the terms refer.

Yes. How is that not a language change? Surely the connection between
word and meaning is an element of languge, and they that connection
changes, language changes. How is that wrong?

I explained about 'sunset' and 'sunrise' above. If we adopt a
heliocentic universe, our use of these terms need not be in any way
affected. In fact, they are used with perfect propriety today. It would
be pedantic in the extreme to yell at the weatherman that 'sunrise' is
a misnomer, because the Earth spins on its axis, thus giving merely the
appearance of the sun rising and setting.

But that's hardly what Sachs was talking about. He's talking about words
whose understood meanings have changed greatly. When we talk about
sunrise and sunset, we refer only to appearances. The words Sachs was
talking about actually have changed meaning.

Think about that for a moment. If the term 'Zweckässigkeit' had
actually changed meaning, there would be no reason for 'some modern
writers' to avoid its use, now would there?

Yes, there would, if the vernacular meaning survives alongside the
technical one and might confuse some readers. Or if we remembered the
former meaning and someone thought that too could cause confusion.

It is clear, from the post in which I copied a longs tretch of text
from Kant's refutation of the telological argument of the existence of
God, that 'Zweckässigkeit' has a long prior history. It is also clear
from the context of Sachs's piece that Sachs is referring to that
history, and chiding those who want to reject the term in the wake of
Darwin. Zweckmässigkeit is used by Sachs in the same way that Kant is
using it. That is the reason I posted that long quote from the Critique
of Pure Reason. In that quote, you can see what the teleological
argument is all about. In the current day, the the 'intelligent design'
people have been trying to use this argument to get Creationism taught
in schools, but they are trying to revive a corpse: the teleological
argument was killed and the coffin nailed shut by Kant in 1781.

It's only because Sachs
thinks the term 'Zweckässigkeit' continues to have telelogical
connotations that it makes any sense for him to bring them up! He says
that despite those connotations, we can continue to use the the word.

Yes, but only by agreeing to abandon the teleological connotations; i.e.
by altering the meaning of the word or, if you prefer, the concepts to
which it refers.

No, that's the EXPLANATION for the observed 'design'. That's why it is
perfectly acceptable to refer to a snake's 'design'.

Did you read the Kant piece?


That's why I (following Müller) translate it as 'design'.

Here again is his comment:

"To shrink from using the word »Zweckmässigkeit« as some modern
writers are inclined to do, out of fear that it suggests outdated
teleological views, appears to be carrying a good thing too far. The
word »nützlich« which is substituted for »zweckmässig« also has a
teleological meaning in human contexts; if we were to throw overboard
every word that once served a discredited theory, such reduction of our
vocabulary would soon result in the distinct impoverishment of our
language. The role of science is not to clarify or modify words, but
rather the concepts to which they refer.

How can it suggest "outdated teleological views" unless it has not
changed meaning?

How can it not have changed meaning when Sachs himself talks about
altering the concepts to which the word refers? This is silly.

I cannot believe you cannot follow this.

The EXPLANATION for what we perceive at first glance
as 'design' in nature has changed, but the 'design' is still there. I
was watching a show earlier today about snakes on the National
Geographic Channel. The narrator used the term 'design' several times
to refer to the snake's physiology. Is that a correct usage? YES! The
snake's 'design' is in fact the result of evolutionary forces.

Constrictors have several interesting design features (special jaws,
skin, scales, heat sensors, breathing tubes, etc.) that are very useful
to the snake (zweckmässig).

Welcome to the concept of metaphor. "Design" is being used in a
metaphorical sense. The meaning is altered from the common one.

Almost.The 'meaning' is not changed, the explanation for what we call
'design' is.

He
approves of changing the meanings of words. How can that be interpreted
as leaving language alone?

WRONG!

READ THE DAMNED TEXT!

You will be surprised to know that exclamation points and all caps, or
even adding "damned", do not turn assertions into arguments.

Well, you seem to have great difficulty reading what Sachs wrote.
Frustration is setting in.

We have a disagreement about that. Get used to it. And explain yourself
if you want anyone to understand your point.

I do, but you have great difficulty following the simplest of points.

I will agree that at least one of us has difficulty.

It's not from this end.


(snip)





True. And in the vernacular sense, Ichthyornis is a bird.

No, there is no vernacular term for it.

There is no vernacular term specifically for Ichthyornis, but there is
one for members of the class to which it belongs. And that word is
"bird". (There is no vernacular term for "Parotia" either, but it's
still a bird.) Can you find an example of someone avoiding that word
when referring to Ichthyornis?

I don't follow you.

Apparently not, but why? I said Ichthyornis is a bird, and you said no
it wasn't because there is no vernacular term for it.

'Bird' is a vernacular term, which by its nature cannot be used for
scientific applications. The ONLY context for talking about Ichthyornis
is a scientific one.
Therefore....(fill in the blank)

Therefore you make disconnected, bare assertions that are true because
you say so. If vernacular terms can't be used for scientific
applications, then we need a completely new language for all scientific
papers, most of which are full of vernacular terms. The specialized set
of terms is quite sparse in the average paper. And who says that a
vernacular term can't be taken intact for use as a scientific term?
Certainly Sachs lists one example. And why can't you talk about
Ichthyornis outside of a scientific context? Nothing you said above
makes any sense at all.

'Wurzel' (root) is a term used for a part of a plant. He's a botanist.
He's not referring to ancient life. 'Leg' or 'wing' both could become
unusable for early avians, which have something which is actually
neither: not quite yet a wing, not quite a leg anymore.

'Wurzel' (root) is not that sort of thing at all.

How do you know? You don't know what meaning change for "Wurzel" he's
talking about. And you persist in bringing up irrelevant differences as
if they are crucial. This is another series of disconnected statements.

Let's leave that out until we can identify what he's talking about.
Otherwise, we're just speculating.

You're the one who brought it up, not me.

Correction: Sachs brought it up.

Not on TO, he didn't. You brought it up when you quoted Sachs, and (just
above) again all by yourself, for no discernable reason. You said
"'Wurzel' (root) is a term used for a part of a plant." Now why did you
say that? You must have thought it relevant to something we were talking
about. But why?

Forget about 'Wurzel' for now, until I can get a German botany expert's
help.

And I said that
there is no vernacular term meaning specifically "Ichthyornis", but
that's not relevant to the question of whether we include Ichthyornis
among birds, because we (everyone but you) call it a bird whenever we
refer to it. What were you trying to say?

That you cannot use 'bird' to refer to it. You MUST use Ichthyornis if
you refer to it.

That's obviously false. You could, for example, call it an animal, and
nobody would object, even though "animal" is a vernacular term. Do you
ever devote a moment's thought to the things you say?

Then let's use 'organism'.

Why? Don't you like "animal"? It certainly not synonymous with
"organism". What is the relevance of your statement here?

I was answering YOUR objection.

What objection? I wasn't objecting to anything. I was pointing out the
silliness of saying that we can't use any other word than "Ichthyornis"
when referring to Ichthyornis.

'Avian' is fine. 'Bird' is not. The former is a technical term; the
latter is a verncular term.

Please explain why a vernacular term can't be applied to animals like
Ichthyornis. Is "animal" a vernacular term"? Is it acceptable to refer
to Ichthyornis as an animal?

I guess, but not 'bird' 'Animal' is a much vaguer term.

We can, however, use "bird", "animal", or
"organism", depending on how specific we want to be at the moment.


All theories are explanations, and all explanations involve causation.
This is elementary. Science tests the explantions. Good ones pass, bad
ones fail. If I explain the motion of my car by invoking the work of
squirrels, that is testable.

So why isn't a phylogenetic hypothesis that explains character
distributions in a set of animals a theory? And what sort of causation
is involved in Newton's theory of gravity? (As it happens, the lack of
explicit causation was one of Leibniz's big complaints against Newton.
But that's a matter for the philosophers.)

Read Nozick, for starters.

Why? What will it tell me? That's even more vague than telling me to
read Kant and the Platypus. You've gone from a book to an entire
author's works that I'm supposed to wade through to answer some unknown
question.

You asked for some accounts of explanation.

That's maddeningly vague. Which question(s) that I asked is this reading
intended to answer? And why are you unable to explain it in your own words?

Yes.

Neither of my questions above were yes/no questions, so I can't
interpret that "answer".

Sorry. I misread. I read: "Are you unable to explain it in your own
words".


That's why I am referring you to the book. Surely you cannot
expect me to summarize 'explanation' in a post in talk.origins.

Why not? Are you claiming that the entire book is the shortest possible
explanation of some simple point, whatever that point may be? And I
still don't know what question of mine the book is intended to answer.

What an 'explanation' is.


Here ya go:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674664795/sr=8-1/qid=1146936303/ref=sr_1_1/103-8317828-1387830?%5Fencoding=UTF8







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... He's talking about LANGUAGE and how science should leave ... That is NOT the same thing as 'changing the meaning'. ... Sachs was arguing against those who wanted to drop the term ... concepts to which they refer." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... He's talking about LANGUAGE and how science should leave ... That is NOT the same thing as 'changing the meaning'. ... Sachs was arguing against those who wanted to drop the term ... concepts to which they refer." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... He's talking about LANGUAGE and how science should leave ... That is NOT the same thing as 'changing the meaning'. ... Sachs was arguing against those who wanted to drop the term ... Some here have said that the word 'bird' refers to a theory about avian ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... He's talking about LANGUAGE and how science should leave ... That is NOT the same thing as 'changing the meaning'. ... concepts to which they refer." ... our understanding of 'disease' changes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Sachs was arguing against those who wanted to drop the term ... And your claim is that talking about a change in the meaning of "bird" ... but rather the concepts to which they refer." ... Selection is responsible for the design. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading