Re: KT boundry event

UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

UC wrote:


John Harshman wrote:

[snip]

Of course it is, which is why I never said anything of the sort.
However, agreeing that "selection" in "natural selection" has no
connotation of conscious choice seems to have worked rather well for us.


That's not a change in the meaning of 'selection', but a coumpound made
by adding 'natural'.

In context, the "natural" is often dropped.

I can see why that would happen.

Darwin himself was a bit concerned that "selection" had too many
teleological connotations, but couldn't find a better term, and wanted
to maintain the analogy with artificial selection.

Or they can change in a flash. Language does all sorts of funny things.
What's a computer?

One that computes

You mean a machine, usually a digital one, that computes.

Actually, that's the definition. Right from the dictionary.

What dictionary, of what date? In the dictionaries I looked at, it's a
secondary definition, interpretable as rare or even obsolete usage.

What was it in 1920?

One that computes

You mean a human being that computes.

"One that computes."

Does "one" mean a human being only, or is it expandable to include a
machine?

The hoops you jump through in order to avoid changes of meaning are
truly amazing.


But the vast majority of words remain unaltered in basic senses for
hundreds of years.

So? The point is that some change quickly.

No, the point is that most do not.

No, you were saying that language changes slowly in order to refute the
notion that a particular word (dinosaur) could change quickly. That only
works if no words ever change quickly. If most words change slowly,
that's irrelevant.

Terms associated with
technology change quite often when technology changes. The same can
apply to terms associated with biology.

That depends on what you mean, obviously. Technical terms are created
to cover new compounds or newly discovered processes.

And they change meaning, like "computer", especially if one sort of
thing takes over the function previously performed by another sort of
thing.

[snip]

OK. So what does "sense" mean in that sentence?

'Something read into'.

Not a sense of "sense" that I'm familiar with. Are you quite sure?
Because the sentence doesn't seem to make sense, so to speak, with that
meaning.

I checked two other dictionaries. The noun 'Sinn' combined with the
verb 'unterlegen' is an idiom that means 'to read into'.

How do you deal with the fact that under this interpretation, the
sentence makes no sense?

OK, I get that. I think it's very, very unlikely that Sachs was using
that meaning. Do you really think he was?

From what I can tell, yes, but it still does not really bolster his
argument, as you point out.

Do I? It might, conceivably. Whatever he's saying about "Wurzel", it's
that we use it with a different meaning, or interpret it differently, or
whatever, and don't care about its former meaning, or interpretation, or
whatever. So why not do the same with "Zweckmassigkeit"? Seems clear to
me regardless of exactly how you understand "Sinn" here.

Kind of like the Supreme Court reading
things into the Constitution that aren't there.

Your little right-wing similes are yet another of your less than
charming features.

That's funny. Lefties do it all the time.

Like that one. Do you really think that the "Tommy hit me first" defense
is legitimate or mature?

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

"The role of science is not to clarify (klären: settle, resolve,
refine, etc.) or modify
(verändern: change) words, but rather the concepts to which they
refer." He cannot mean 'exchange'
by 'verändern', which is 'wechseln'.

Since the words are NOT to be 'changed' or 'be modified' (verändern) ,
how can you say he wants
them to change? Your reading is impossible.

Then we have a conundrum. Your reading requires that statement 4 is
unconnected to all that came before it. Whatever, then, is statement 4
talking about? You seem now to be saying that it has nothing to do with
the Zweckmassigkeit issue, and is talking about Wurzel only.

I must confess I don't see the relationship so clearly.

So you have now abandoned any opinions on the meaning of Sachs's passage?

No, not at all.

I think the last part of what Sachs says (the bit about 'Wurzel') is a
mistake on his part: it does not bolster his argument. The rest of it
is consistent.

But you are still in the position of (apparently) claiming not to
understand what he's talking about in the last part of his penultimate
sentence (starting with "The role of science..."). You say you can't
tell if he's talking about what comes before, or about "Wurzel".

I went to the OSU main library last night to look at this book again.
All of Sachs's books are in storage, as the library is to be remodelled
soon. I asked them to ship all of his books to another library on
campus so that I can peruse them. I will copy out the entire section on
Darwinism. I looked through a microfilm last night of an earlier
edition of the Sachs Lehrbuch, but the passage I was looking for was
not there. I believe it was a footnote added in a later edition.
'Zweckmässigkeit' did occur in the text in which he discusses Darwin,
and was in the index. the terms 'Kamp' and 'Dasein' were also there,
clearly indicating he is talking about 'Zweckmässigkeit' in connexion
with Darwinism. He also uuses the term 'Adaptationen' (adaptations),
and other obvious English loan-words.

I will have to look into the entire book to get a better understanding
of what he is saying in regard to 'Wiurzel'.

It still seems very unlikely that the previous clause ("The role...")
refers only to "Wurzel" and not to the discussion of "Zweckmassigkeit".
Wouldn't you agree?

[snip]

I really don't know how to make it clearer. He's arguing against
something we all agree on. But that last clause is a summary of what
he's arguing against. Thus "replacement of zugzwang (or whatever)" and
"clarify or modify words" must mean the same thing (or at the very least
least the former must be a subset of the latter) to Sachs. Otherwise
it's not relevant to the rest of his sentence.

I'm not sure how it is, but I trust that's because I don't know the
botanivcal issue relating to
'Wurzel'.

But "Wurzel" appears in the next sentence. Are you saying that the last
part of one sentence is unconnected to the first part of that sentence,
but is connected instead to the following sentence? Was Sachs that bad a
writer?

No.

So why are you talking about "Wurzel" as if you can't understand point 4
without it. And what does point 4 refer to?

Two possibilities:

1) I copied the passage incorrectly
2) He does not see that this point is not the same argument as the
other

How very confused. So either you don't know what Sachs was saying, or he
wasn't making sense.

[snip]

What I am confident of is the following:

1) Sachs is not afraid of employing Zweckmässigkeit to describe plant
organization even after Darwin.

Agreed.


2) Sachs means the same thing Kant does by Zweckmässigkeit

Outside my knowledge and not discernable from the passage you quoted.


3) Sachs notes that "some modern writers" are afraid of using
Zweckmässigkeit because it conjures up the old, discredited
telological theory of biological organization

Agreed.


4) "Some modern writers" substitute 'nütlzlich' for 'zweckmässig'
because they believe the former avoids the teleological connotations

Agreed.


5) In this they are mistaken, because in talking about human affairs,
'nütlzlich' has telological connotations

Agreed.


6) The role of science is not to purify, clarify or modify words, but
the concepts to which they refer.

The problem with this point is that you don't seem to know what it
means. I think I know what it means, but you don't agree, though you
seem to have no theory of your own that accounts for the structure of
the passage.


7) If we threw away all terms that onece served a discredited theory,
we would soon run out of words.

Agreed.


(Example: After Kopernicus, we believe
that the world revolves about the sun, whereas the previous theory was
that the sun revolved about the Earth. Nonetheless, we retain the term
'sunrise', which refers merely to the experience we see.)

9) Should we discard the term 'Wurzel' from botany, because there has
been some new understanding of what 'Wurzel' does or is?

...or, apparently, because "Wurzel" now has a different meaning from the
one it once did.

No, that we 'read into it' something different. That's not the same
thing. All the sources I checked (three) gave this wording: "read
into".

We all know it is possible to read into a text something that is not
really 'there', especially when the text is old, poorly written, or
vague..

OK, I see how there could be a meaning similar to "read into" for the
"Wurzel" sentence, though I have no idea what the specifics might be.
Perhaps "interpret differently" or "understand differently", like you
said referring to the same object but differently comprehending its
function or some such. But that doesn't seem to affect the application
of the previous sentence; it's just an example. The previous clause
still applies to "Zweckmassigkeit", so "clarify or modify" must still
apply to ceasing to use the word.

You also need to explain how this relates at all to "dinosaur" or "bird".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... That's not a change in the meaning of 'selection', ... teleological connotations, but couldn't find a better term, and wanted ... It is a fact that most words change meaning slowly, ... and showing you why the "Wurzel" sentence would be relevant. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... That's not a change in the meaning of 'selection', ... teleological connotations, but couldn't find a better term, and wanted ... It is a fact that most words change meaning slowly, ... and is talking about Wurzel only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... It is a fact that most words change meaning slowly, ... I checked two other dictionaries. ... and showing you why the "Wurzel" sentence would be relevant. ... That's what Sachs is complaining about, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Connotations are things in our heads. ... And so its meaning would have changed. ... Meanings without and with teleological connotations. ... involve replacing a word. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Its offensive connotations are a splendid ... And so its meaning would have changed. ... Meanings without and with teleological connotations. ... involve replacing a word. ...
    (talk.origins)