Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

UC wrote:

On Jul 11, 6:10 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:

On Jul 11, 5:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:

On Jul 11, 5:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:54:32 -0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Jul 11, 3:46 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

It's either up to you, or it's up to the
majority of the people who use the term. It's a clear cut either-or,
the majority or UC. Which should we abide by, the majority or UC?

The majority's usage is recorded in the damned dictionary!

Oh, so archaeopteryx *is* a bird...

Thanks for conceding that.

No, THAT is not a matter of usage...we have discussed this before...

Apparently you have a personal definition of "usage". If, when referring
to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. And it's a
usage you say is wrong for reasons you have never been able to make
clear. Nobody (including, I suspect, you) is able to tell what we should
or should not be calling a bird according to your notion.

The overwhelming majority, when referring to Archaeopteryx, call it a
bird. So by your expressed criterion above (as recorded in the
dictionary, incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird.

So could you explain why it's wrong nevertheless?

The issue of usage would concern the vernacular term 'bird', not the
Linnaean term 'Archaeopteryx'.

And "bird" is what we're talking about here. Does the term "bird"
include Archaeopteryx? Nearly universal usage says it does, since people
commonly refer to Archaeopteryx using the word "bird".


The issue of 'Archaeopteryx' would be
the classification of Archaeopteryx as 'Aves', not as 'bird'.

That's another issue, actually. Is it surprising to know that there is
more than one possible issue?


'Archaeopteryx' cannot be classed as 'bird' because 'bird' is not a
Linnaean term. There is NO vernacular term for Archaeopteryx, not
'bird', not anything.

Oddly, everyone except you considers "bird" to be a vernacular term that
applies to Archaeopteryx, in exactly the same way it applies to Turdus,
Harpactes, or Remiz.


Are you with me? There is NO USAGE issue for 'Archaeopteryx'. It is
merely a name, and is essentially meaningless.

You are tying yourself in knots. All nouns are merely names, and they
all have meanings, i.e. their attachments to the things they name.
"Bird" is an arbitrary sound we attach to certain things, Archaeopteryx
among them.

Try to focus here and stop drifting off into irrelevancies. Why can't
you call Archaeopteryx a bird, despite the fact that everyone (except
you) does just that?

The point is that one cannot claim that Archaeopteryx is a bird simply
because the dictionary says so, under 'Archaeopteryx'. In other words,
this is not a usage issue regarding 'Archaeopteryx', but a
classification issue. The usage issue would be regarding 'bird'.

I wish you would stop saying "the point is". You seldom have any
coherent point, and the point you claim to be making is seldom the same
from one moment to the next.

Anyway, what you say above is a restatement of the obvious and is not
under contention. The usage issue *is* regarding "bird". Everyone else
in the world thinks that "bird" includes Archaeopteryx, and this is
shown by their use of "bird" when referring to Archaeopteryx. The
dictionary is one example of this, no better and no worse than thousands
of other such examples. The question is why you reject this common
usage, when you claim elsewhere that common usage is the only guide.

.

Relevant Pages