Re: KT boundry event

UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:


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.

This would work better if you would respond intelligibly to the people
who are actually arguing with you, addressing the points those people
actually raise, rather than (without even warning us) making irrelevant
points to unspecified and theoretical lurkers.


Because all of this in interrelated.

That's what you say right now. But when asked to explain the supposed
interrelationships, you come up with nothing.

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.

And your claim is that talking about a change in the meaning of "bird"
is the same thing as saying that the word "bird" refers to a theory
about avian origins? Not that I can see.

neverbetter said so.

You are the only one who thinks he did. He doesn't. I don't. Is this
starting to sound familiar? And in contrast to Sachs, we actually have
neverbetter here to clarify.

"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.

You would be less confused if you simply responded to what I post
without worrying about what someone else may or may not have posted at
some unknown time in the past.

neverbetter said it.

Do you understand why I'm unwilling to accept that claim on just your
word? And why it doesn't really matter whether anyone else did or did
not say it, because you were supposedly responding to me, not someone else?

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.

Sigh back atcha.


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'.

Presumably you mean that "are".

Yes. I was trying to mock the usage of President Clinton (spit).

I have a certain nostalgia for Clinton. At least when he lied, it was
about sex, and nobody died for it.

Actually, in modern cladistic terms, it
is the same.

The applicability of "modern cladistic terms" to vernacular English is
precisely the issue. You're begging the question.

No, I'm offering a reason why someone might, with justification, say
that birds are dinosaurs.

And whether there is a problem with "is" is what we're
arguing about here. I don't, I hope, have to remind you that repeating a
claim is not an argument in favor of that claim.

I hope to remind of what the issue is: the arrogance of scientists
trying to tell me how to use vernacular terms, and abusing the English
language!

Actually, I seem to recall that you were the one trying to tell everyone
else how to use vernacular terms. Any abuse has not been demonstrated.

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.

How is this relevant?

Because it illuminates what Sachs was referring to by
'Zweckmässigkeit'! Do I REALLY need to spell that out for you?

What you need to spell out is what the relevance of Sachs' views might
be for the usages of "bird" and "dinosaur".

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?

No.

You should. It illuminates what Sachs was referring to by
'Zweckmässigkeit'.

It seemed clear enough from the short passage you quoted originally.
What does any of that have to do with "bird" or "dinosaur"?

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.

There appear to be many things you can't believe. I suppose I long since
should have asked why the Sachs quote should be relevant to the meaning
of "bird" or "dinosaur" anyway.

I have explained this, repeatedly. Birds are 'birds', not dinosaurs,
even if they are descended from dinosaurs (which is the correct way of
stating their relationship).

Yes, you have claimed that many times. What you have not done is relate
it in any intelligible way to what Sachs said, or give us any rational
argument of your own why your claim is correct.

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.

That's semantic sleight of hand.

'Design' is polysemic, as are most word in most languages.

Yes, and words acquire many of their meanings through modification of
the previous meanings. As, for example, "Zweckmassigkeit".

I wrote a paper about this:

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html

One of the meanings of 'design' is "adaptation of means to ends", and
certainly the organization of living matter into organs, each suited to
a particular function falls under that rubric.


The meaning of "design" as commonly
understood requires a designer.

It hints at that, which is why 'design' is a good translation of
'Zweckmässigkeit'. That's why "some modern writers" wanted to avoid
the use of 'Zweckmässigkeit', according to Sachs.

All of this is obvious.

We have to redefine the term
metaphorically (a very common way of changing word meanings) in order to
keep using it. Nobody except you has any problem with words changing
their meanings.

Read the Sachs text, again, and substitute 'design' for
'Zweckmässigkeit'.

Makes perfect sense, as long as we agree to change the meaning of
"design" to eliminate its teleological aspects.

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.

It's not a 'bird', that's why!

What is your argument for it not being a bird? Why is it that everyone
except you refers to it, when they refer to it, as a bird?

'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.

I reject that notion, but even if it is, how is that relevant? You can't
just bring up whatever strikes you at the moment. You have to connect
your thoughts into an argument.


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.

I don't recall asking what an explanation is.

You certainly stand in need of understaning what it is.

That's rather different from asking for some accounts, isn't it? For a
guy who has pretensions to precision, you certainly are sloppy in your
language.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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: Analog vs Digital
    ... > so as to propel the bird in the opposite direction. ... you have an abstract transformation - "bird wings of size S (or ... >> action, there is no design. ... > noun meaning not derived from some verb meaning of the same spelling ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... But nobody is arguing against Sachs, ... Some here have said that the word 'bird' refers to a theory about avian ... And your claim is that talking about a change in the meaning of "bird" ... that's the EXPLANATION for the observed 'design'. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... But nobody is arguing against Sachs, ... Some here have said that the word 'bird' refers to a theory about avian ... And your claim is that talking about a change in the meaning of "bird" ... that's the EXPLANATION for the observed 'design'. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading