Re: KT boundry event

UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

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.

He said so. I posted the link to his post. Maybe you have trouble with
English comprehension.

Apparently so does neverbetter. Apparently you are the only person in
the world qualified to understand what people mean, and even the
original writer is not qualified. Just how arrogant are you?

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?

Surely you can grasp that with more than 1000 posts, keeping track of
who said what becomes challenging.
(snip)

Not if you use a threaded reader and maintain context.

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.

Oh, please. At least try to come up an original thoughtless statement.

Not original, but hardly thoughtless. I don't, however, want to argue
about how virtuous in all ways the current president may be. I just
wanted to respond in passing to your gratuitous dig at Clinton.

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.

I am asserting that it cannot IN PRINCIPLE be done.

Yes, you are asserting. But that's all you're doing. You have given no
reasons, at least that hold up even to cursory examination.

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.

It has. You're simply refusing to acknowledge it.

Your "demonstration" consists merely of repeating your claims and in
quoting irrelevant sources as if they are germane.

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".

I have, repeatedly.

No, you have merely asserted it. Last time we got into this you were
unable even to do that -- you had forgotten the supposed relevance.

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"?

It shows that Sachs respects the vernacular, and wishes to define what
science has to do with language.

It shows nothing about respect for the vernacular, and its defintion of
what science has to do with language makes no claim relevant to "bird"
or "dinosaur", if we restrict its meaning in the narrow way you do. If
we don't restrict it, it supports my position, not yours.

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.

I have done so, repeatedly.

You have claimed to have done so repeatedly, as you do here.
Occasionally you have advanced what you call arguments, but they don't
closely resemble any actual arguments, and you ignore challenges to
those "arguments".

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".

You don't have the slightest idea what you are saying.

Now there's an argument for you. Do you deny that words acquire new
meanings? Do you deny also that they sometimes lose old meanings? Do you
deny that words change meanings?

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.

It seems not to be recognized in your posts.

Seems to you.

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.

Not "change the meaning", but realize which among many related meanings
is applicable. In this case, "adaptation of means to ends". That
meaning has existed for a long time (since at least the 17th c.), right
along with several others.

Sachs seems not to have known that, based on the passage you quoted. And
is it your claim that words never change meanings?

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?

Because they don't know any better!

So you agree that you are the only person in the world who uses the word
correctly, then? Just how arrogant are you?

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.

You did, earlier, ask me for a clarification of 'explanation'.

You will forgive me if I don't take your unsupported word for this.

.

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" ... Selection is responsible for the 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