Re: KT boundry event


John Harshman wrote:
(snip)

OK, let's see. Nope. All you do below is make up some sort of new rule
that vernacular terms can't follow scientific usage.

Where did I say that? Why do ALWAYS distort what I say? I said they
have their OWN basis of meaning, which is independednt of Linnaean
classification. That basis of meaning is usually IMPORTANCE TO MANKIND.

You can make up all
the rules you like (and you *really* like), but that doesn't reflect the
way we actually use words.

Non sequitur

I don't think non sequitur means what you think it means, whatever that
is.

Argumentum ad ignorantium

Argumentum ad ignorantium doesn't mean what he thinks it means either. I
think he just tosses these out at random when he doesn't have any real
response.

Argumentum ad tedium....

And he seldom has a real response.



Consider two sentences:

"Canis lupus familiaris are also Canis lupus"

"Dogs are not wolves"

Can both of these sentences be true at the same time?

Yes. Why? How?

It has to do with the meanings of the vernacular and taxonomic terms.
The Linnaean terms are simply names, names used for classification. To
the non-specialist, they carry no meaning whatsoever, and even to the
scientist they are merely 'names'. The vernacular terms are NOT
'nested'; they do not refer to any genetic or familiar relationships
between the members of the group. They are simply a 'group' distinct
from another 'group'. 'Dogs' are a group that is distinct from
'cattle', 'wolves', and 'sheep'. The vernacular terms unify in a group
those things that traditionally have been considered similar, based on
appearance (morphology), behaviour, and usefulness or importance to
man, and these are the ONLY criteria that matter in the vernacular
usage of these terms.

My, what a lot of verbiage to make a pointless point. Yes, we usually
don't mean to include dogs when we say "wolf". But that doesn't mean
"dogs are wolves" is false,

Yes, it does, unless we severely qualifty it. The words 'dog' and
'wolf' are meant to DISCRIMINATE dogs from wolves, so it is INHERENTLY
absurd to say "dogs are wolves" without severe qualification. For the
ORDINARY usages of 'dog' and 'wolf', "dogs are wolves" is false and
absurd.

because language is flexible enough to
accomodate all manner of shades of meaning.

As I said, with severe qualification, it can be made clear what you are
talking about.

The average person will
understand exactly what you mean if you say that, i.e. that dogs are a
domesticated form of wolf. Your empty formalism is silly.

As I said, with severe qualification, it can be made clear what you are
talking about.

On the vernacular level, i.e., using the vernacular terms, dogs are not
wolves, nor are birds dinsosaurs. The vernacular terms do not, and
should not, match the 'nesting' of the Linnaean terms, because the
vernacular terms are based on different criteria and used for different
purposes.

Why? Because you say so? Vernacular terms are often nested. There's no
reason they shouldn't be.

They are not intended for that usance. Do you use a hammer to drive a
screw when you have a screwdriver at hand?

It's true that people once were not aware that
birds are dinosaurs, and thus didn't think of the groups as being
nested.

They don't need to think about it at all. You just want to shock people
and confuse them.

But now scientists know this, and the public perception is
changing too. There's nothing wrong with changing perceptions.

There is nothing wrong with it if you use the right approach, one that
does not involve linquistic blundering...

The Linnaean nomenclature exists strictly for classification; it has no
other purpose.

That's quite wrong, but it also seems irrelevant to any point you may be
making.

What other purpose does it serve, then, besides identification and
classification?

The vernacular terms are used for many other purposes
that have nothing to do with classification, and do not mirror Linnaean
classification, nor should they.

Generally the vernacular terms do mirror classification. Why shouldn't
they? You seem to think there's some kind of uncrossable line between
vernacular and scientific usage. Why?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chez watt 7?: KT boundry event
    ... Why must there be clues in the words themselves for the sentence ... The difference is between saying "dogs ARE wolves" and "dogs ARE ... that the vernacular terms indicate no relationship. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... "Dogs are not wolves" ... The Linnaean terms are simply names, ... The vernacular terms are NOT ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... that vernacular terms can't follow scientific usage. ... That basis of meaning is usually IMPORTANCE TO MANKIND. ... 'Dogs' are a group that is distinct from ... 'cattle', 'wolves', and 'sheep'. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... that vernacular terms can't follow scientific usage. ... 'Dogs' are a group that is distinct from ... 'cattle', 'wolves', and 'sheep'. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... that vernacular terms can't follow scientific usage. ... That basis of meaning is usually IMPORTANCE TO MANKIND. ... Argumentum ad ignorantium doesn't mean what he thinks it means either. ... 'Dogs' are a group that is distinct from ...
    (talk.origins)