Re: 'Life" by Richard Fortey

On Sep 12, 12:12 pm, "chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx"
<chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:31 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 11 Sep, 17:15, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 11, 11:58 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 11 Sep, 14:12, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 11, 3:14 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 10 Sep, 20:39, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:47 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 10 Sep, 19:42, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:15 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:01 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:31:18 -0000,

UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:21 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:13:23 -0000,

UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:09 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:59:08 -0700,

Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 8:44 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:36 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:13 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 9, 7:20 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:00:05 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in <uranium-1189364405.755973.44...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:

On Sep 8, 4:50 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

They're unique *taxonomic* entities, just as "Ford" is a (relatively)
unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the
company as "a Ford", or "the Ford".

Yes, but that is different. 'Ford' is actually a family name given to
a company.

It's a difference that makes no difference. The same thing applied to
the company "GM" and "a GM" car.

Do you drive a GM?

Not any more. I used to, but now I drive a Ford and a Kia. See? It
works just fine. I think you are a loon (an individual of the broader
class of loons).

So? A car is not the same thing as a person. Fortey compares Linnaen
binomials to the names of persons, not to the names of cars.

"So?" yourself. "I married a Smith". "I once met a Jones". "I met
a John Doe in Chicago".

You must be a blast at cocktail parties, incessantly 'correcting'
everybody.

Other than the folks here, has UC actually ever corrected anyone? I mean,
the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. He's full of bluster,
but, in reality, he's a nobody. He can't point to a single human being on
the planet who acknowledes his "rules" of usage.

You amuse me.

Classic UC non-reply.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx

Well, Aaron, what do you want me to say? Are you a semiotician? Are
you an expert on language? Are you an expert on anything?

No, but neither are you, UC. The difference is that I have enough knowledge
of linguistics to call your bluff. You are not a linguist, UC. I doubt
you're even a semiotician. You're just a Usenet troll.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx

The fact is that I have used semiotic techniques to solve some very
complex text interpretation problems that so-called experts could not.
I solved a textual issue that had plagued Kantian studies for at least
125 years, and had caused considerable confusion and error. Hundreds
of pages had been written by English-language philosophers about when
Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be
roused from his dogmatic slumber. I showed that this was a
misunderstanding and mistranslation of the text, and that Kant was not
referring to any 'recollection' at all. This proved to be vital, as it
changes the whole history of when Kant was influnecd by Hume. Because
of this misunderstanding, Kant had been thought to have had a second,
later encounter with Hume's thought, when in fact Kant was referring
to something much earlier.

I did this using semiotic techniques, outlined in a paper published in
Semiotica.

And I don't care whether that makes me an 'expert' in your eyes or
not, but if were so damned easy, why didn't anyone else catch this
mistake in 125 years?

"The pedant, by contrast, acquires a detailed knowledge of some small
thing, and then proceeds to round upon any person bold enough to
infringe his small area. Rather than being in awe of history, he denies
the magnitude of the task in hand by small-mindedness, by guarding some
small piece of the past with pettifogging pettiness, ardent to assert
his command of every last footnote and detail. The pedant is immediately
recognizable at scientific meetings as he advances to correct the last
speaker on a detail of his address."

--Richard Fortey, Life, p. 182.

My paper was not concerning some point of minutae. If it were, it
would not have been puublished. It basically rewrites the history of
Hume's influence on Kant.

Has anyone ever cited it?

RF

Yes. In addition, one semiotics professor used it in her seminar, at
the University of Helsinki.

In other words it has had a minimal impact.

It depends on what you consider 'impact'. Semiotics is a small field
to begin with.

RF (two of whose papers have been cited this week)

Your claim is that the papers in which you were co-author had a rather
wider influence than merely semiotic.

That's correct, and I have received recognition of that from people
who work in Kant. I showed the paper to some of them before
publication.

[...]

And this is supposed to impress us?

[...]

What he meant to say was, "It's been sighted by people who can't find
work."

Chris



First: The vast majority of academic papers written and published draw
very little attention in the first place, and not all attention is of
the sort that can be easily observed through citations.

Secondly, the 'news' in this paper is cannot be expected to be warmly
welcomed by those who have spent a lot of time trying to figure out
when Kant 'recollected' David Hume.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Life" by Richard Fortey
    ... unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the ... the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. ... Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be ... changes the whole history of when Kant was influnecd by Hume. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life" by Richard Fortey
    ... unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the ... the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. ... Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be ... changes the whole history of when Kant was influnecd by Hume. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life" by Richard Fortey
    ... unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the ... the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. ... The fact is that I have used semiotic techniques to solve some very ... Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life" by Richard Fortey
    ... On Sep 10, 11:15 am, John Harshman ... unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the ... the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. ... Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life" by Richard Fortey
    ... unique company name, yet one can still refer to the products of the ... the guy would be laughed out of a room of linguists. ... Kant had recollected something about Hume that caused Kant to be ... changes the whole history of when Kant was influnecd by Hume. ...
    (talk.origins)