Re: KT boundry event


John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

UC wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


UC wrote:



John Harshman wrote:



UC wrote:




John Harshman wrote:




(snip)




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.

That's nothing like the reasoning I have used.

Incredibly, that's false.

Incredibly in the literal sense?




The question is whether
birds are dinosaurs.

The question is whether dinosaurs are extinct, no?

If you like. To answer that we have to know if birds are dinosaurs. If
they are, dinosaurs aren't extinct.

You CANNOT use the argument "birds are dinosaurs" to prove that
"dinosaurs are not extinct", and then attempt to support the assertion
"birds are dinosaurs" by saying "dinosaurs are not extinct".

That's right, and that's why I don't do the second part. If dinosaurs
are not extinct, that says nothing about whether birds are dinosaurs.



You say they aren't because dinosaurs are extinct.

I say they CAN'T be, because

1) dinosaurs are extinct

and

2) dinosaurs were quite different creatures.

Would you agree that the first part is vacuous?

Have you seen any Plesiosaurs lately? Tyrannosauridae?

How many times have you been told that plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs?

I know they are. But they arose and flourished along with them. I have
seen them referred to as "honorary dinosaurs".

How does any of this argue in favor of your calling them dinosaurs?


Did I? If I recall, this is what I asked:

"Have you seen any Plesiosaurs lately? Tyrannosauridae?"

Do you just spout words randomly or are you trying to say something? If
you didn't mean that plesiosaurs were dinosaurs, how were they relevant?

They were similar.

I will agree that tyrannosaurs are extinct. So let's see your argument.
You say that all dinosaurs are extinct, and you prove it by showing that
some dinosaurs are extinct.

What 'some' are you talking about? Not only are the dinosaurs extinct,
but so are the plesiosaurs and pterosaurs.

But all you said was that plesiosaurs and tyrannosaurs were extinct, as
if that proved dinosaurs are extinct. Do you see that it proves no such
thing?

Dinosaurs and all other large similar animals became extinct.

You really do seem incapable of answering simple questions, most
particularly when the answer would be embarrassing to you. I suppose
that's natural, but wouldn't it be better just to avoid these
embarrassing situations in the first place, by not making ridiculous
statements? Dinosaurs became extinct iff birds are not dinosaurs, which
is the point under contention. "Large, similar animals" are irrelevant.

Do you really consider that a valid argument?



"Definition

The taxon "Dinosauria" was formally named by the English scientist
Richard Owen in 1842 as "a distinct tribe or suborder of Saurian
reptiles".[1] The term is derived from the Greek words δεινός
(deinos - "terrible", "fearsome" or "formidable") and σαύρα
(saura; "lizard" or "reptile"). Owen chose it to express his awe at the
size and majesty of the extinct animals, not out of fear or trepidation
at their size and often-formidable arsenal of teeth and claws."

Do you note the word 'extinct' there?

Yes. Note that it's not part of the definition, but an incidental
comment.

So, you pick and choose in the definition? Pot? Kettle? Black?

Do you disagree or not? As you may recall, Merriam-Webster has already
agreed that their definition is wrong and should be changed.

They admitted no such thing.

Look again. Here, I'll post their email again:

"Based on the use of cladistics, it is true that birds are considered
dinosaurs and more specifically, theropods. And while not all
agree with this classification scheme, it appears to be generally
accepted. I will send a note to Merriam-Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary to update the appropriate entries. No editorial changes
are currently scheduled for this dictionary, so I am unable to tell
you when these revisions may occur. Thank you for writing."

I thought we had agreed that "extinct" was not a definitional
criterion but merely an empirical observation, subject to change.

But everywhere you look..there it is...

Is it a definitional criterion or isn't it? Don't dodge.

No....but...It's accepted that they are.

You mean it was once accepted by the author of the definition of
"Dinosauria" that currently appears. It's no longer accepted by the
editors of the dictionary, nor by scientists, nor by an increasing
portion of the public. At any rate, the question was not whether
dinosaurs actually are extinct, but whether you can say they're extinct
by definition or whether it's an empirical question subject to change
upon receipt of new information.

But this is not part of the definition of "dinosaur". It's observational
only.

It's what we in philosophy call 'empirical'.

Call it what you will. The point here is that "extinctness" is not part
of the definition of "dinosaur".

Not analytically, but empirically true.

Only if birds are not dinosaurs. You can't use "dinosaurs are extinct"
as evidence that birds are not dinosaurs. Do you agree?

You can't DEFINE birds as dinosaurs and then claim dinosaurs are not
extinct. Sorry.

That's not what I'm doing.

Yes, it is.

And you didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did.

Was the answer "yes" or "no"?

If we discovered a living animal that
would otherwise be called a dinosaur, we would call it a dinosaur and
decide that they weren't extinct after all. Do you agree?

Yes, but there is none. Loch Ness Plesiosaurs?

How it's possible for you to think that plesiosaurs are dinosaurs and
that birds are not is quite beyone me. Are you incapable of learning
even one simple fact that you didn't already know?

Anyway, the point is that "extinct" is not part of the definition of
"dinosaur", because it's conceivable to discover a living dinosaur.

Conceivable? Of course.

So, finally, you agree with my point. Good.


If so, then we can't say "birds are not dinosaurs because dinosaurs are
extinct", because there is nothing in the definition of dinosaurs that
requires them to be extinct.

But they ARE. You redefine facts. It's a fact. See above.

And this is your circular reasoning in play. Birds are not dinosaurs
because dinosaurs are extinct. Dinosaurs are extinct because birds are
not dinosaurs. And round and round we go.

All dinosaurs are extinct. This is a FACT, not subject to change by
definition.

Nor is anyone attempting to do so. It's subject to change by
observation, i.e. by observing a living dinosaur. Now the question is
how to recognize a dinosaur. How would you do so?

It sure as hell does not look like a swan or a robin or a finch or a
penguin. Those are birds.

Your answer makes sense only if we assume a priori that birds aren't
dinosaurs. So birds aren't dinosaurs iff birds aren't dinosaurs. Would
you call that circular?

So, once again, how do you recognize a dinosaur? Defining features, please.

You cannot come along later and change the definition of dinosaur in
order to bring them back from extinction.

Nobody is changing the definition of dinosaur; that's always been "a
member of Dinosauria". It's the definition of Dinosauria that has
changed. But surely you agree that scientists are allowed to change the
meaning of scientific terms based on new understandings of the facts.

Right. So include Aves in Dinosauria, if that makes you cladistically
happy. But even that won't make birds into dinosaurs! Nothing can.

I beg to differ. Since the definition of "dinosaur" is "member of
Dinosauria", if the meaning of Dinosauria changes to include birds, then
the meaning of "dinosaur", while remaining constant, now includes birds.

Thus a living animal could, in principle,
be a dinosaur.

COULD, but ISN'T. Just like the case with aliens from Mars.

The point is that whether birds are dinosaurs must be decided before we
say that dinosaurs are extinct, and "dinosaurs are extinct" is not an
argument against birds being dinosaurs. Agree or disagree?

'Dinosauria' as the term was intended to be used by Owen, are extinct.
Agreed?

Yes, in the same way that Coelacanthida, as the term was intended to be
used by whoever coined it, is extinct. Owen didn't know that birds fall
within the clade Dinosauria.

But he DID know that Archaeoperyx was a bird? Aren't you being
inconsistent?

No. You really have trouble with logical relationships. Owen knew that
Archaeopteryx was a bird. He didn't know that it was a dinosaur. It's
really very simple.

But we do. Should we exclude them because
of things Owen didn't know? On what basis?

Same goes for my claim that Archaeoperyx cannot be called 'bird'!

What do you mean? What do we know that Owen didn't know and that makes
Archaeopteryx not a bird?

Why?



We could say "because birds are not dinosaurs, dinosaurs
are extinct"; that's empirical. But the first statement is legalism,
nothing more.

Non sequitur. Birds not being dinosaurs is not the reason dinosaurs
went extinct.

We aren't talking about the reason dinosaurs went extinct. You seem
incapable of expressing yourself clearly or understanding simple
distinctions. Nor do you understand different meanings of "because".

No, I was mocking your typically incompetent English.

You sure are arrogant for such an inarticulate writer.

Choking on my Coke....spraying Coke on the Sony Vaio electronic
computer monitor screen....

That's your arrogance at work. You are unable to imagine your own
incompetence. There was a study a while ago on this; incompetent people
really don't recognize their incompetence.

Perhaps you would like me to say "because birds are dinosaurs, we know
dinosaurs are extinct". Would that be clearer for you?

Gook Gobbledy.

Do you mean that you don't understand the sentence?

Nup.

What do you mean, if anything?

So all the weight has to attach to your claim #2, that dinosaurs are
quite different from birds. Fine. In what ways are they different?

As a group, dinosaurs were large. Birds, as a group, are much smaller.

Clearly not true. The average sizes of the non-avian dinosaurs we know
are much less than the average sizes of the birds we know.

Bull***. Prima facie bull***. Utter, creationist-grade bull***.
Jimmy-Hoffa grade bull***. Lyndon Johnson-Robert McNamara grade
bull***.

That's weird, because that part of what I said was agreeing with you.
More evidence that you are incapable of understanding what you read.

Hitler was a vegetarian...

And more evidence that you post random statements whenever you can't
think of anything face-saving to say.

This is
probably true even if we account for taphonomic biases. But they overlap
considerably. This is not a consistent difference, and not a good
criterion on which to base a differential definition.

That, above, was the part where I disagreed. And you ignored that part.


The morphology, or anatomical characteristics, of birds and dinosaurs
are vastly different.

Such as?

Just as you ignored this part.


Birds are all wram-blooded, and there is some question as to whether
dinosaurs were. Most probably were not.

But some probably were. Again, not a distinguishing characteristic.

And this part.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triceratops_1.jpg



And how, if birds are members of Aves,

Nope. Individual species are members of Aves, not 'birds'. Gallius
gallus is a member of Aves, but neither 'bird' nor 'chicken' is. A
chicken is a bird and a bird is an animal.

This is your made-up rule about mixing terminology. Why should anyone
follow your made-up rule?

Because it makes sense to keep the vernacular and Linnaean completely
apart.

Go on... Why?

It needs no argument. It's directly, vividly, blindingly, intuitively
obvious.

Someone less charitable than I am -- no, strike that -- someone just as
charitable as I am would say that your pose here is because you have no
argument to make.

and dinosaurs are members of
Dinosauria, and Dinosauria includes Aves, can your claim be true? How
can a subset of some group be distinct from the group?




If birds are dinosaurs, then dinosaurs are not extinct. You have
it exactly backwards.

Sorry, does not work that way. That's question-begging. Something has
to be 'not extinct' before it can be anything at all.

That made no sense to me. You will have to explain yourself. (But you
probably won't, if experience is any guide.)




Why do I say birds are dinosaurs? Because your dictionary properly
defines "dinosaur" as "member of Dinosauria", and birds are members of
Dinosauria.

Nope. 'Aves' can be members of 'Dinosauria', but 'birds' cannot.

Isn't Aves made up of birds?

Nope. 'Bird' is a vernacular term that has nothing to do with the
Linnaean terms.

Your made-up rule once more.



This is, I suppose, your mixing rule again.
But this is a rule you just made up. It's not a rule. Humans are
mammals. Do you agree?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean merely 'animals with mammary
glands' then yes. If you mean 'Mammalia' as a clade, then no. If you
want to talk about the memners of 'Mammalia', then you have to use the
Linnaean term "Homo sapiens sapiens".

Why?

Don't you consider yourself clever enough to figure this out on your
own? Must I do EVERYTHING for you?

As far as I can tell, you do nothing for me. When you can't explain
something rationally, you blame me for not coming up with my own
rational explanation. But the fact is that I think there is no rational
explanation; your rule is nonsense.

Vernacular terms have no relationship to the Linnaean. Right?

Some do, some don't. Some in fact have an exact one-to-one relationship
with a Linnean term.

You have lamely attempted to falsify this by appeal to
something Alan Feduccia once said, or to something G. G. Simpson once
said. And then you have said it doesn't matter because "bird" is
vernacular while "Dinosauria" is scientific, and you can't mix terms.

That's correct. Linnaean or vernacular, one or the other.

But that's a rule you just made up in this thread. Why should anyone be
bound by it?

Common sense, for one.

If "common sense" is any more than your personal whim, you will be able
to explain the reasons.



And then, which brought us here, you said that birds can't be dinosaurs
because dinosaurs are extinct and birds aren't. And that's the circular
reasoning.

Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. A few primitive creatures,
which were neither 'birds' nor 'dinosaurs' (because these vernacular
terms do not apply to them) survived. These creatures were the
ancestors of what we today call birds.

Oh, now "dinosaur" is suddenly a vernacular term again, when you've
spent much of the last week or two denying that it is. You really can't
remember from moment to moment what you're arguing, can you?

It creates problems, no doubt about that, to use this term, since there
IS no true 'vernacular' term for the Dinosauria. In this text I am
using 'dinosaur' it AS IF it were.

Of course. And only you can decide from moment to moment. Did Homer
compose the Iliad, or was it another Greek of the same name?

Actually, it was his identical twin sister.

Sigh.


So, you knew her too?


Let's look. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Do you agree that
if birds were dinosaurs this would not be true?

Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. All of them.

Non-responsive.

True, nonetheless.

True if birds are not dinosaurs. Do you agree?

No, true period.

So it's true even if birds are dinosaurs? Are you unable to understand
the simplest conditional statement? You don't have to agree that birds
are dinosaurs in order to agree with my statement.

So you can't use it as
support for your claim that birds aren't dinosaurs. We first have to
establish whether birds are dinosaurs, by other means, before we can say
that dinosaurs are extinct.

Nope. Circular reasoning. We cannot establish that they be dinosaurs by
other means. We cannot define dinosaurs into existence.

Amazing. How is this circular reasoning? How is it defining dinosaurs
into existence?



Now you say that the survivors were neither
birds nor dinosaurs, and that they were "primitive". On what basis do
you claim that they weren't birds, and on what basis do you claim that
they were primitive?

Why do you have to force them into one of only two possibilities:
bird/dinosaur? There is NO verncular term for such animals and never
was.

Non-responsive. In fact I'm not forcing them into one of two
possibilities. My claim is that they are both, if you will recall.
Answer the questions.

Archaeopteryx is either

1) neither bird nor dinosaur (thus demands a new name, like
'protoavian')

or

2) He is a dinosaur

He is not a 'bird'.

And what is your justification for this claim?


It follows from:

"he's neither bird nor dinosaur"

That's not a justification. It's a restatement of one-half of your claim
above, and a contradiction of the other half.

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....

Wait for it...





It seems to tell us that
Archaeopteryx is one.

Red herring. I was talking about tradition in the use of WORDS....

So was I. Traditionally, we use "bird" to refer to Archaeopteryx. Do you
deny that?

Absolutely I deny that. What great English linguistic tradition is
connected with obscure fossils from Germany?

Dunno how great it is, but the fossils are hardly obscure -- they're
among the most famous fossils in the world, and among the few that most
educated people have heard of. And the linguistic tradition would
involve everyone from Richard Owen through the present day, other than
you. What exactly keeps this from being a tradition?

Owen named it Archaeopteryx lithographica. If he did refer to it by the
vernacular term 'bird', it may well have been strictly for convenience.
It was not meant as a scientific name.

So you agree that Owen called Archaeopteryx a bird and did so in a
scientific paper.

I don't know whether he did. I said, " If he did refer to it by the
vernacular term 'bird', it may well have been strictly for convenience.
It was not meant as a scientific name."

CAN'T YOU READ?

I can. Apparently you can't, because you have had Owen quoted at you
directly referring to Archaeopteryx as a bird.


I don't know whether such things are true, now do I?

Are you accusing Augray of fabricating the quote? In fact you know very
little, but that has never stopped you from being certain in the past.
Why should it stop you now?

The question is not
whether he intended "bird" as a scientific name -- it's certainly not a
formal, Linnean name -- but whether it's used to refer to Archaeopteryx.


Isn't that the start of a tradition?

What? Can't I start one?

You can, if other people adopt your practice. What makes it a tradition
is usage by other people through time. Like calling Archaeopteryx a bird.


And haven't the
150 years since then continued that tradition, up until the time you
decided it was bad and non-vernacular?

I have never said 'bird' was non-vernacular. Where do you come up with
this ***? I said that 'bird' was vernacular, but that Archaeopteryx
was not eligible to be called by that vernacular term!

OK. So why isn't it eligible?

1) Anachronism

2) Morphology

Neither is a valid reason. There is no anachronism involved, and
Archaeopteryx fulfills the morphological criteria for a bird as stated
in your dictionary. If you have different criteria, on what basis do you
assert your right to determine the criteria?

Of course "bird" isn't a scientific name. But we use names like this all
the time in scientific literature. Why not? Your little mixing rule?

Precisely.

And why should we follow your rule?

Because it makes things clearer.

I don't agree that it does. If we actually followed your rule, it would
be harder to say things, not easier. And nobody except you is having any
problems with understanding. In fact you understand perfectly well too;
you just don't like it.

You have given no justification. All
you have said when asked for one is "common sense" or "it's obvious" or
"you're stupid". One might suspect that you have no justification and
are trying to avoid admitting so.


That way, we can understand what was written about 400 years ago:

[snip spammish posting of Hamlet's soliloquy for no apparent reason]

It's intelligible, almost every word, no?

It's one of Shakespeare's more intelligible bits, yes. You will have to
make your point, if you have one.

Linguistic change can cause confusion.

Perhaps it can, occasionally. Yet it happens nevertheless. Are you
claiming we should prevent all linguistic change for that reason? Good
luck in doing so.

Scientists should refrain from making statements like "birds are
dinosaurs" because the vernacular terms (if we allow 'dinosaur' as a
vernacular term) make that false. Vernacular terminology should not be
expected, nor forced, to follow cladistic lines. Keep such discussions
in the Linnaean terminology.

Why? Scientific usage has frequently altered the understanding of
vernacular terms. Now you come along and say it shouldn't. But you can't
explain why.

Remember Sachs?

I do. You don't understand Sachs. And Sachs doesn't give any reasons why
the understanding of vernacular terms shouldn't be altered, nor does he
address the question if we accept your narrow interpretation of his
meaning. If we accept a broader (and more reasonable) interpretation, he
argues directly against you.

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".

Nobody knows what you mean when you say that.

RIGHT! Nobody knows what the *** you mean when you say "birds are
dinosaurs" or "dogs are wolves", either!

On the contrary. I find that everyone other than you knows what I mean.

Argumentum ad populum.

So "nobody knows what the *** you mean" isn't an argumentum ad populum,
but "everybody knows what I mean" is, right?

I should rephase:

"Dogs are wolves" is, literally, nonsense.

Feel free to make any unsupported claims you like.


So in that case and
explanation would be necessary. But they do know what I mean when I say
"birds are dinosaurs", so no explanation is necessary.

Nobody understands this nonsense.

I have quite a bit of experience in saying this

So what? What does that prove? Hitler had a lot of experience in saying
what he said! That didn't make it true!

Thanks for the gratuitous Hitler comparison. Does everyone at home have
to take a drink now?

Only if it's Italian wine.


, much more than you do.

Irrelevant.


So why are you the expert on whether people understand it? It seems to
me that I would be the expert.

Ha.

I notice you haven't offered an argument here. You have offered your
opinion "nobody understands this nonsense" as simple fact. I have
explained that I have a great deal of experience with this and in my
experience everybody understands it. So why is your unsupported, and
quite ignorant, opinion the guide to truth here?

Your quite arrogant phrase "It seems to me that I would be the expert"
took me quite by surprise.

Maybe everybody merely nods in agreement with you. Maybe you're a
pleasant, non-confrontational kind of guy. But I'm not. I'm arrogant as
hell and I'm fucking brilliant.

I solved a 135-year old mystery in the history of philosophy by proving
that there was no 'mystery' to begin with! And I did it with
dictionaries and logic.

One of the measures of brilliance is refusing to accept something just
because everyone else does, and especially BECAUSE everybody else does.

It's also one of the measures of a crank. You may in fact be brilliant,
but I have seen no evidence of it. I'll at least agree that you're
arrogant as hell and that you're not a pleasant kind of guy. It's hard
to make that sound like an accomplishment, though.

I admire Ward Churchill in a way. He has basically told the academic
world to go *** themselves and has gotten away with it...for a
while...

Of course, he's not at all brilliant, just arrogant...

I will ignore that stright line.

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.

I suppose I could. But why?

Part of learning is indeed rote memorization.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Does that song pop into your head?

Sure it does. Is this eventually going to lead somewhere, perhaps back
to some relevant point?




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.

Actually, one could argue that the conclusion follows directly from the
second premise

No, it does not.

Yes? How many men do you know without testicles? Commonly, eunuchs are
not referred to as "men", in my experience.




, so this isn't a non sequitur either.

They could have been lost in a war...

A logical possibility. You could argue that "has testicles" is not a
defining characteristic of a man. But you picked a pretty poor example.

I didn't pick it as a defining characteristic. You lie an awful lot.
This will be noted on your permanent record.

!

You persistently and consistently distort what I say. WHERE did I say
that having testicles is a defining charactersitic of maleness? It may
be, but I did not say it!

It's often considered such a character, though.

But you pay scant attention to what I ACTUALLY SAY. This is one of but
many examples of that.

That's why your example
is poor.

It was intended to demonstrate a non sequitur...

"Socrates is a man" does imply that he has testicles.

No, it does not.

It
doesn't logically prove he has them, because of course in formal logic
"man" is just a sequence of letters with no characteristics not supplied
by statements. Your example would have been better, though, if you had
stated a conclusion we know either to be false or do not associate with
"man". "Socrates is a philosopher" would be a good one.


But never mind. If
you know what the term means, why have you proven incapable of applying it?

[snip]

Go on. Who are the educated, and how shall we recognize them?

They know how to read and write.

And how do we tell whether they know this? Who is the judge of whether a
person can read and write? I suspect that you are the judge, right?

Who is the one that has professional editing experience?

Actually, I have professional editing experience. You claim to, but you
can't even edit your own posts.

I rush a lot.

Bad characteristic for an editor, I would think.

I do this at work.

Good for you.

And
I suspect that I am not, right? So this is just the principle that you
are the sole judge of everything, slightly disguised.




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.

All of which is irrelevant.

Totally relevant.

Good. Then you will be able to explain the relevance. Now:




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.

So can any term you like. Being a dead language has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has everything to do with it. Living languages have
rights, so to speak.

Please defend that claim.

Living language users have squatters' rights. You cannot unilaterally
change the meanings of words in a living language. They'll just
lunchtime forgetfulness clear waterfowl pedestrian manifold.

You can change anything you like. The question is whether anyone else
adopts your usage. I predict that nobody will be adopting your usages
any time soon.


Saffron buttercup smokestack delight!

I predict nobody will be adopting that usage either. Plenty of people,
however, are adopting the inclusion of birds within the meaning of
"dinosaur".

And from this they will gain what insight?

"Birds are dinosaurs that are very...oh....birdish..."

Again with the strawman. What insight does humans being mammals give us?
It tells us what sorts of characteristics to expect. We can expect that
humans have 7 cervical vertebrae, even before we have the opportunity to
count them. That they are likely to have a 2-3-3-3-3 phalangeal formula.
That they have heterodont dentition. Etc. And it tells us what other
animals they are most closely related to.

Don't know about you, but I find phylogeny interesting for its own sake.

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?

No, it's just irrelevant to me and to this discussion.

Not at all.

Please explain the relevance. Now:

It's been part of the whole discussion for quite some time.

No it hasn't. You just brought it up here for the first time, above.



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

So?





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.

Again, so?

The 'vernacular' is what is neither Latin nor French.

But "birds are dinosaurs" is neither Latin nor French. It must therefore
be vernacular. So?

Are you always this obtuse?

Don't blame me for your inability to articulate your point. You said
"the vernacular is what is neither Latin nor French". If you didn't mean
that, why did you say it?

Youi should already know this BASIC ***! This is eighth-grade ***!

Non-responsive.

Ah, but true!

Still non-responsive.

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

Really? I suppose that loan words are forbidden in your world?





That we invent new words when common
ones don't serve?

Based on Latin and Greek roots, of course.

Sometimes. Other times we invent them in other ways. There's no rule
requiring Latin or Greek (except in Linnean terms, and even there we can
get around it easily by latinizing anything we like, sometimes merely by
declaring it latinized).

Right.




'Television'. 'Microscope'.
'Phonograph'. German is different. It uses vernacular German roots for
new inventions. 'Fernsehen'. 'Vergrösser'. 'Schallplatte'.

Laser. Quark. Masiakasaurus knopfleri. Natural selection.

See? Like Masiakasaurus knopfleri. It's got a little piece of latinized
Greek ("-saurus") and a latin genitive ending ("-i"), but the rest is
not Latin or Greek. And the other words have no Latin at all, but
they're still scientific terms.

Ahemm...we were talking about terms for inventions.

No, you are confused. We were talking about invented words, not words
for inventions. I think you need a vacation.



I gave the
examples:

'Television'. 'Microscope'. 'Phonograph'.

I noted that German does not follow this practice, at least not often:

'Fernsehen'. 'Vergrösser'. 'Schallplatte'.

And I noted a number of invented words in English that were neither
Latin nor Greek. What Germans do is of course another of your
irrelevancies, with the purpose only of telling me how much you know.
You are the very fount of all knowledge. Now can we move along?

No, I made and used examples of names for inventions in English,
pointing out how they are formed.

You did. But did you intend to change the subject?

Slightly.

Because previously we
were talking about invented words.

Which these were.

And that was their relevant feature. The fact that they were invented
words for inventions was not relevant. So why did you make such a big
deal of it?

When you change the subject you
should mention that, if you want to maintain any sort of communication.
I also don't see why you changed the subject. Why are invented words for
inventions relevant and other invented words not relevant?

It was what I was talking about. You got lost and blamed me.

Are you absolutely sure you're brilliant? Maybe you should get a second
opinion.

That shows how we handle NOVELTIES in
English. We generally invent NEW terms, taking elements from Latin or
Greek. The GErmans simply combine existing vernacular German terms, or
adopt the English ones in some cases.

Again, you fail to realize that we get new words from many sources, and
that Latin and Greek are only two of those. Thus "laser" and "quark",
which you ignored. German is less likely to use Latin or Greek than
English is. So what?

I was attempting to show you how our native tongus handles things, not
German or some other language.

Then why did you bring up German?

Often, people who are not native
speakers of English attempt to handle things as they are handled in
their native tongue.

And how is this relevant?

The naming of ancient animal forms is a different case, as instead of
MORE sophistication or development, we have LESS.

You've tried this before. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense
now.

Maybe you should think about it more. Calling something a 'X' implies
that it is an example of something that possesses a sufficient number
of criteria that consitute an 'X'. We all know what this means. To be
an automobile, an object must possess a certain minimum feature set.
Take away certain of those features, and it no longer can be considered
an automobile. In the case of prehistoric life, however, and unlike the
automobile, which developed from well-known and named predecessors,
there has never been any precedent. The successors were known and
named, but the predecessors, whose features are less complete and
less-well developed, were never known. Thus, no terminology ever
existed for Arcaheopteryx. Some people were eager to identify him as
belonging to the same family of modern life that we call 'birds', but
that is like calling an 1855 horse-drawn buggy a Porsche 911. the
difference is, we had a name for the 1855 "horse and buggy". It was
"horse and buggy".

Now is it clearer?

No. Your claim was clear already. You just never justify it, and that
was no exception. What are the criteria that define a bird and that
Archaeopteryx lacks? Why should we avoid calling it a bird? And did you
note that you are having your nested group problem again? The Porsche
911 equivalent would be calling Archaeopteryx a raven, or perhaps even
more, a Chihuahan raven.

It's not at all clear that ancient animals are less sophisticated
or developed than modern ones, nor is it clear why sophistication or
lack thereof should make a difference in how we coin words for new or
newly discovered things.


That common words serve quite frequently?

Words like 'has' or 'be' or 'consists of'? Sure!

Don't be disingenuous. Words like "sand" or "bird" or "star" too.

Nah...

So your contention is that "sand" is not a word commonly used in
technical papers on geology, that "star" is not commonly used in
technical papers on astronomy, and that "bird" is not commonly used in
technical papers on ornithology. Is that correct?

Astronomers use 'object' a lot, I know. The case is somewhat different,
though, from biology. In any event, when they looked back in time, at
very distant objects whose light is billions of years old, they found
that the objects were utterly unlike the familiar stars and galaxies
near Earth. These old ojects were given new names, because they were
more primitive:

http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20000413.qso.html

Quasar.

Once more with the irrelevancies. Yes, they invented a word "quasar".
But that has nothing to do with their use of the word "star". Stop
dodging the question. Do astronomers use the word "star" frequently in
scientific papers?

'Object' is the one of the correct terms. There is no Linnaean-type
terminology in astronomy, so your argument is fatally weakened.

Once again you avoid the question. Is it because you know that the
answer would be "yes", and that this would damage your cause? How about
"sand" and "bird", by the way?

The parallel does not exist in astronomy.

Once again you avoid the question. You can't remember from one moment to
the next what we're talking about. Right here, we were talking about
whether vernacular terms should be used in scientific literature.

It depends on the branch of science. Some get along just fine with
vernacular, others do not. Biology does not. It requires lots of
species names, and paleobiology faces the problem of a lack of
vernacular terms for extinct species.

Nothing about anachronisms or criteria. Just use of vernacular terms.

As above.


.