Re: KT boundry event
- From: "UC" <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 May 2006 14:45:09 -0700
John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:
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.
Ah, another rule. In fact, vernacular meaning is not independent of
scientific meaning.
See that word 'usually' in what I wrote? No? Look again!
If it's only "usually", then your argument has little force.
How so?
Because we're talking about a specific case that could always be an
exception if there are any.
Almost everything men do is for their own benefit. We
domesticated cattle, dogs, and grains for OUR benefit, not theirs.
None of which has to do with language or with the present case.
Of course it does. Language reveals the importance to man of any given
item.
No, it reveals that we have occasion to talk about it. I suppose you
could redefine that as "importance", though surely not "benefit". None
of this seems to have anything to do with birds or dinosaurs.
One of the most ancient uses for language was for hunting, probably.
http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/origins.html
We're only
talking about a couple of words here. Even if the majority of words have
some characteristic, that's not an argument that the particular words
we're talking about have it too. And anyway, I don't think your rule is
true, even "usually".
Scientific meaning influences vernacular meaning.
Importance to mankind is only one factor involved in circumscribing
meanings.
Sometimes, but the English language was established long before
experimental science became a dominant force.
So what? The English language changes continually.
You grossly exaggerate the extent and degree of change. A 100-year-old
dictionary is still 99.99% accurate and quite useful.
Even if we accept your numbers, so what? Maybe we're talking about that
.01%.
Question-begging.
Again, you seem not to know what question-begging is; or perhaps you
just aren't equipped to detect it. Let's see: most animals are insects,
therefore a dog is an insect. That's your reasoning.
There are several kinds of question-begging. The one used here is:
"Dinosaurs are not extinct."
"Birds are dinousars."
"Therefore, dinosaurs are not extinct."
In this clever manipulation, you have 'defined' dinosaurs into
existence.
It's never
"established" in the way you seem to be using the word. It's always in
flux. And so scientific meaning influences the ways everyone speaks
today, even if it didn't influence the way Edward the Confessor spoke.
[snip]
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.
You are the only person who seems to have trouble with it.
What is this? Argumentum ad populum? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. You should know
better than to think I would fall for that. What most people believe is
of no importance to my argument.
Of course it is, when we're talking about vernacular speech. The
vernacular is whatever people think it is.
That is not true, and you know it. That is a gross misunderstanding of
what 'vernacular' means
That's not true and you know it. The vernacular is what people speak.
Over-simplified, gross distortion. The vernacular is what people speak
consistent with tradition and education in that tradition. it is
opposed to Latin or other 'learned' languages.
OK. So what does tradition tell us about birds?
Tradition tells us about words....
It seems to tell us that
Archaeopteryx is one.
Red herring. I was talking about tradition in the use of WORDS....
That way, we can understand what was written about 400 years ago:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To be, or not to be: that is the question (3.1.64-98).
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer (65)
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks (70)
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, (75)
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, (80)
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, (85)
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of? (90)
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry, (95)
And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
slings ] Some argue that "slings" is a misprint of the intended word,
"stings." "The stings of fortune" was a common saying in the
Renaissance. But in the context of the soliloquy, "slings" likely means
"sling-shot" or "missile." This seems in keeping with the reference to
"arrows" - both can do great harm.
outrageous fortune ] Fortune is "outrageous" in that it is brazenly
defiant.
And by opposing end them ] If you cannot suffer the "slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune" then you must end your troubles with suicide.
consummation ] End. Eternal silence is the consummation so "Devoutly to
be wish'd" for.
rub ] Problem, difficulty. The term comes from lawn bowling, where the
"rub" is any obstacle, usually uneven ground, that pushes the ball off
course.
shuffled off this mortal coil ] To separate from one's body (mortal
coil = body).
respect ] Consideration. What happens to us during "that sleep of
death" is something we all contemplate.
calamity of so long life ] The terrifying thoughts of what will happen
to us in the afterlife are reason enough to endure the hardships of
this life for so long.
time ] Time = temporal life.
his quietus make ] Settle his own account.
bare bodkin ] A "mere dagger." Bodkin was a Renaissance term used to
describe many different sharp instruments, but it makes the most sense
here to assume Shakespeare meant a dagger.
fardels ] Burdens.
No traveller returns ] Since Hamlet has already encountered his
father's ghost this line has raised much debate. There are four major
current theories regarding this line: 1) Shakespeare made an egregious
error and simply failed to reconcile the appearance of the ghost and
Hamlet's belief that human beings do not return; 2) Hamlet has earlier
suspected that the ghost might be a devil trying to trick him
(2.2.600), and therefore, at the point in the play where he delivers
this soliloquy, he does not believe his father truly has returned; 3)
Hamlet is referring only to human beings returning in the flesh and not
as mere shadows of their former selves; 4) the entire soliloquy is
misplaced and rightfully belongs before Hamlet has met his father's
ghost. In my estimation, theory number four seems the most plausible in
light of the many irregularities among the three extant texts of the
play (for example, Hamlet's final soliloquy appears in Q2 but not in
the First Folio). I am inclined to discount theory number two simply
because Hamlet would likely not be so certain that "no traveller
returns" after he has proof that something exists beyond this world,
whether it be the ghost of his father or an evil spirit.
bourn ] Limit or boundary.
conscience ] Obsolete Thought; consciousness.
native hue of resolution ] Plainly, "the natural color of courage" is
fiery red. Hamlet believes excessive contemplation paralyzes our
ability to take necessary action and turns men into cowards. The face
of cowardice is sickly pale. Note how Hamlet's description corresponds
to the Renaissance belief in the four humours.
great pitch and moment ] Of momentous significance. The "pitch" was the
name given to the highest point in a falcon's flight before it dives
down to catch its prey.
With this regard their currents turn awry ] A reference to the sea and
its tides: "Because of their thoughts, their currents become unstable."
Soft you now ] "But hush!". Hamlet hears Ophelia begin to pray and he
must cut short his private ponderances.
Nymph ] See commentary below.
orisons ] Prayers.
---------------------------------------------------
And so does education in that tradition. (And of
course education need not be formal, or tradition ancient. Slang is
vernacular too.)
If
you don't like the way people speak, you aren't defending the vernacular
but attacking it.
See above.
See Platypus and the German Philosopher.
If you stand alone, you
aren't defending the vernacular, whatever else you may be doing.
False amd pathetic.
Your forgetfulness is showing here. You forgot to make an argument.
Other people
seem to understand the "severe qualifiations" without having to state
them explicitly.
The point is not whether they are 'explicitly' stated, but whether they
are present.
No, the point is whether the statements "dogs are wolves" and "birds are
dinosaurs" can be easily understood without extensive explanation.
What do you mean by 'explanation'?
I mean more words added by the speaker to clarify his meaning. What do
you mean?
Do you mean "severe qualification" as I have repeatedly stated?
Possibly. I'm not clear on what "severe qualification" means to you, but
I suppose that "extensive explanation" is similar. And of course it
isn't necessary.
Of course it is.
"Buicks are Cadillacs".
Other people are smarter than you are.
Non sequitur
No, I think it follows quite nicely. Let's be explicit:
Premises:
1. Other people have no trouble understanding things you find difficult.
2. Ability to understand is an index of smartness.
Conclusion:
Other people are smarter than you are.
Looks like a valid syllogism to me. Conclusion follows from premises.
On the contrary, I pierce through the fog that surrounds most people's
miserably inadequate understanding of language, even that of academics
(spit).
You don't understand what "non sequitur means", then.
Yes, it means "does not follow from the premises".
Right. So instead of attacking the premises or conclusion, as you did,
you have to attack the connection between the premises and conclusion.
That's why I think you don't understand what it means, however well you
can parrot the definition. Ask any high school teacher whether ability
to parrot indicates understanding.
Ask any liberal Democrat whether ability to parrot "No blood for oil"
or "not in my name" indicates understanding.
What you have done
here is to deny the conclusion. Presumably that means you deny one or
more premises. "Non sequitur" doesn't just mean "wrong". It's a
particular sort of wrong, in which the conclusion is not supported even
if we accept the premises. What you have said here is irrelevant to the
question of whether what I said is a non sequitur.
You offer no proof, just distortions and ad hominem attacks.
We were discussing whether what I said is a non sequitur. You have not
addressed that question at all. That's typical.
I know damed well what no sequitur means.
"All men are mortal"
"Socrates is a man"
"Socrates has testicles"
This is an example of non sequitur.
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.
It's clear already. To most people.
Argumentum ad populum. Try again.
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.
Argumentum ad populum. Try again.
As I said, with severe qualification, it can be made clear what you are
talking about.
Though it can seldom be made clear what *you* are talking about.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Not really an argument. More of an observation.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Argumentum ad nauseam.
Argumentum ad poopulum.
Boring.
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?
Who says they aren't intended?
They were never intended to be used in a scientific context, because
they antedate rigorous scientific method.
So do most words. Once again, followed to the logical conclusion, you
would be calling for a completely new language for science.
No, an understanding that certain vernacular terms are not acceptable
for certain applications, that's all.
And which terms and applications those are should, apparently, be
decided by you personally, right?
Not at all. But certainly not by illiterates...
By whom? You consistently refuse to say.
The educated, not the merely trained.
No English
words would be allowed in any scientific paper.
In Germany, Latin was used for philosophy and science until the late
18th c. See Blackall, Eric (1978). The Emergence of German as a
Literary Language. [Second Edition.] Ithica and London: Cornell
University Press.
Do you have a point? Should we go back to Latin? But hey, Latin wasn't
designed for science.
Actually, it was adapted for that use quite some time ago...
Ah, languages can be adapted to new uses? Why didn't you say so? Hey, I
know. Let's adapt English for scientific use. We'll write our papers in
English, inventing specialized terms only when necessary.
Why should we use that either? Shouldn't we invent
an entirely new language explicitly for science?
It already exists: Latin.
Nonsense. Latin was not invented for science.
Linnaean terminology and medical terminology is based on Latin and
Greek. Music and art use Italian for the most part. Other disciplines
may use other languages, but I am not sure what those languages may be.
Perhaps German is used in some fields.
Latin words are no more
precise than English words.
They can be coined and defined any way you want, at will, because Latin
is a dead language.
Are you seriously proposing that we all go
back to writing in Latin? How come you don't write your scholarly papers
in Latin?
Linnaean terminology and medical terminology are based on Latin and
Greek. Is this news to you?
I suppose we could keep
the grammar -- or could we? It certainly wasn't intended for use in
science; maybe we need new grammar too.
Or maybe an old one, like Latin.
Why? Latin grammar wasn't designed for scientific discourse.
In what language was Newton's Principia written?
Non-responsive. In what language was Origin of Species written?
We're talking about terminology. Species have had Latin-based formal
names for roughly 350 years.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/images/systema.jpg
How does
Principia being in Latin mean that it's a better language for science
than English, or that it was designed for science?
My point is that the Latin was used for philosophy and science until
recently (about 1700) in English-speaking countries, and until rather
recently in Germany (1780). Leibnitz wrote in Latin and French, I
believe. Latin and French were the dominant languages of the court and
of philosophy and science.
Science uses English all the time. When a common word won't serve, and
only then, we invent a new technical term. But common words serve quite
frequently. This "never intended" thing is ridiculous.
Certainly not.
Nice argument again.
It's no worse that your mere bald assertion above it.
Do you dispute any of my claims of fact above?
Yes, of course.
Which ones? Do you claim
that science doesn't uses English?
It's hard to call it 'English' when species are named using Linnaean
Latinate/Greco terminology
That we invent new words when common
ones don't serve?
Based on Latin and Greek roots, of course. 'Television'. 'Microscope'.
'Phonograph'. German is different. It uses vernacular German roots for
new inventions. 'Fernsehen'. 'Vergrösser'. 'Schallplatte'.
That common words serve quite frequently?
Words like 'has' or 'be' or 'consists of'? Sure!
If you grant
all those, then the idea that "never intended" can have any importance
as a criterion must necessarily disappear.
I'm talking about species terminology, primarily, and how clever of you
to try to redirect the cross-examination to irrelevencies.
("Usance"??) Sometimes they are,
sometimes they aren't.
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.
Shock sounds like fun. Confusion doesn't. I'm actually doing neither in
this case. Nobody needs to think about dinosaurs. We just like to
sometimes. Why prevent us from doing it?
Nothing. Just stay the hell away from me with your absurd English.
Let's try again. Why is it absurd?
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...
You are an odd person to criticize linguistic blundering, the way you
write.
I write better than just about everyone here. I type poorly. Those are
distinct things.
Agreed for the last two sentences. But you write poorly too. You are
guilty of several of Fenimore Cooper's literary offenses, most
particularly in that you often use the second cousin of the word you
mean. And you are guilty of others that Cooper never considered.
You live in.. like...teenage-language land...man....
Your logic is particularly incisive today.
Who but you says it's a linguistic blunder to say that birds are
dinosaurs? And if you're the only one who thinks so, can it be a blunder
at all?
Argumentum ad populum. Whether I am the only one who thinks so is
irrelevant.
This bears repeating: when you're talking about vernacular usage, what
other people do is the only criterion.
Nope. Try again. You have no understanding of what 'vernacular'
actually means.
The usual thing to do would be to explain why I'm wrong. Just asserting
that I'm wrong is pointless, though it seems to be your only skill.
I have explained it, numerous times. See any good unabridged
dictionary, to save me the trouble of repeating myself. See, in
particular, 1 d:
" d: being the name of a plant or animal in the vernacular language or
common native speech as distinguished from the Latin nomenclature of
scientific classification *black alder and winterberry are vernacular
names of Ilex verticillata*
What's your point? We agree about that. But why is any particular name
the vernacular name? Because people call things by that name.
Duh....yes....AND it's official!
[snip long set of defitions, none of which seem to explain what you mean
by "vernacular" that's different from what I mean.]
[snip]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- References:
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolution of a Cola
- Next by Date: Re: More Creationist Dishonesty
- Previous by thread: Re: KT boundry event
- Next by thread: Re: KT boundry event
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
