| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2006 08:54:18 PM |
| Object: |
Language (dealing with fundies) |
Fact:
There are a great many areas of study, and each and every
one of them has specialized language uses. On top of this,
there are a great many professions which also employ
specialized language use.
The reason is simple enough -- standardization. Everyone has
to be on the same page.
One large & common problem in communication is when someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their
specialized word use. Clearly this is not a smart move. That is to
say, given the number of fields of studies and professions out there,
and just how common specialized word use is, conflicts would be
inevidable. Instead of providing clarity in communication, which the
specialized word use was meant to provide, the result can only
be muddled communication.
Another problem with communication is stupidity. But we won't
get into that now...
.
|
|
| User: "Krubozumo Nyankoye" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
26 Oct 2006 01:00:29 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> eyed the audience and in choked emotion intoned:
news:1161827658.128493.292310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fact:
There are a great many areas of study, and each and every
one of them has specialized language uses. On top of this,
there are a great many professions which also employ
specialized language use.
The reason is simple enough -- standardization. Everyone has
to be on the same page.
One large & common problem in communication is when someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their
specialized word use.
Wrong. The whole point of having conventions is consistency, you are
claiming that any arbitrary meaning can be assigned to a term and used in
argument. That is patently false. The same terms may have different
meanings in different contexts. That is the reason for their specific
disciplinary definitions. The term 'fault' is different in law and geology.
Yes, now let's discuss stupidity.
Clearly this is not a smart move. That is to
say, given the number of fields of studies and professions out there,
and just how common specialized word use is, conflicts would be
inevidable. Instead of providing clarity in communication, which the
specialized word use was meant to provide, the result can only
be muddled communication.
Another problem with communication is stupidity. But we won't
get into that now...
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
26 Oct 2006 06:18:01 AM |
|
|
Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> eyed the audience and in choked emotion intoned:
news:1161827658.128493.292310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fact:
There are a great many areas of study, and each and every
one of them has specialized language uses. On top of this,
there are a great many professions which also employ
specialized language use.
The reason is simple enough -- standardization. Everyone has
to be on the same page.
One large & common problem in communication is when someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their
specialized word use.
Wrong. The whole point of having conventions is consistency, you are
claiming that any arbitrary meaning can be assigned to a term and used in
argument. That is patently false. The same terms may have different
meanings in different contexts. That is the reason for their specific
disciplinary definitions. The term 'fault' is different in law and geology.
"Wrong?" All you did is say what he said, using different words.
Yes, now let's discuss stupidity.
Clearly this is not a smart move. That is to
say, given the number of fields of studies and professions out there,
and just how common specialized word use is, conflicts would be
inevidable. Instead of providing clarity in communication, which the
specialized word use was meant to provide, the result can only
be muddled communication.
Another problem with communication is stupidity. But we won't
get into that now...
I don't see any discussion of stupidity.
(snip)
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
26 Oct 2006 03:37:01 PM |
|
|
Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
One large & common problem in communication is
when someone within a specific field of study or
profession insist on enforcing
their specialized word use.
Wrong.
Sorry, honey, but you couldn't be less correct if you tried.
Which is weird, because I spelled it out for you, but you
missed it anyway.
The whole point of having conventions is consistency,
You're pretending that there are no conventions outside
specialized fields of study & professions.
This is wrong.
Secondly, you're pretending that there is no chance for
conflicts between the specialized word uses within all
those fields of study and professions.
That stupidity times two! Congratulations.
you are claiming that any arbitrary meaning can be
assigned to a term and used in argument.
No, retard.
What I did was point out the fact that each & every field
of study together with each & every profession has their
specialize word use. If you prefer, they each assign
arbitrary meaning to words.
And they do.
There is no room for debate on this point, nothing to argue.
They do it.
That is patently false.
Well I think I've wasted enough time with you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
27 Oct 2006 09:50:40 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Fact:
There are a great many areas of study, and each and every
one of them has specialized language uses. On top of this,
there are a great many professions which also employ
specialized language use.
The reason is simple enough -- standardization. Everyone has
to be on the same page.
One large & common problem in communication is when someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their
specialized word use. Clearly this is not a smart move. That is to
say, given the number of fields of studies and professions out there,
and just how common specialized word use is, conflicts would be
inevidable. Instead of providing clarity in communication, which the
specialized word use was meant to provide, the result can only
be muddled communication.
Another problem with communication is stupidity. But we won't
get into that now...
So when you said "One large & common problem in communication is when
someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their specialized word use" you meant when talking to someone from
outside that field?
Is that a common problem? In talk.origins the misuse of words often
involves equivocation, usually from a non-specialist insisting on using
a technical term, but applying common definitions to it (without
clarifying this). Such as all of those creationists who say "evolution
is just a theory" which confuses so many issues that it's hard to know
where to start.
Have you had a recent problem with what you describe (if I understand
it crrectly)?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
27 Oct 2006 10:56:14 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
So when you said "One large & common problem in
communication is when someone within a specific
field of study or profession insist on enforcing their
specialized word use" you meant when talking to
someone from outside that field?
Yes.
Is that a common problem?
Oh yes.
In talk.origins the misuse of words often involves
equivocation, usually from a non-specialist insisting
on using a technical term, but applying common
definitions to it (without clarifying this).
Perhaps, but I had been challenged to present some
ideas on reaching the creationist, or even just those
open to the creationist views.
You can't make demands of the other side. Any solution
has to be on the people here, not the wingnuts.
Such as all of those creationists who say "evolution
is just a theory" which confuses so many issues that
it's hard to know where to start.
It's an example of what I was speaking about. The
vernacular use of "theory" isn't wrong, but it's not what
the scientific community means by "theory."
If you want to reach the other side, if you want to
convince them then you've got to speak their langauge.
Demand that they learn your langauge first, and the
other side wins a new recruit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Carnegie" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
28 Oct 2006 10:17:05 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
It's an example of what I was speaking about. The
vernacular use of "theory" isn't wrong, but it's not what
the scientific community means by "theory."
If you want to reach the other side, if you want to
convince them then you've got to speak their langauge.
Demand that they learn your langauge first, and the
other side wins a new recruit.
You have a point, but I don't think you win. Of course technical
language exists merely for convenience, and to a layman can look like
nonsense. For instance I suppose there are hundreds of meanings of the
word "cake", very few of which are at all close to a bakery dessert.
Or "tree" that have little to do with natural-grown wood.
I'd say the correct approach is to make the point that technical
language is different from lay language, and then to provide
translations as you go along. That makes it harder for the other side,
the enemy, to compare your private statements amongst colleagues ("you
secretly admit it's only a theory") unfavourably with public
statements. A theory is as sure as science is; it is /the/ theory.
But it shouldn't stand inviolable - which isn't to say that the man in
the street should be suspicious of it.
It's difficult to speak layman while thinking in science, but it needs
to be done.
I also don't think "new recruit" is the right way to describe the
outcome off a failure to communicate. You supposed that you're talking
to someone who is already on the other side, or else in danger of being
ensnared. But you won't push them into the arms of ignorance by
speaking badly. It's the opposition who do the dirty work.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
26 Oct 2006 12:01:52 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Fact:
There are a great many areas of study, and each and every
one of them has specialized language uses. On top of this,
there are a great many professions which also employ
specialized language use.
The reason is simple enough -- standardization. Everyone has
to be on the same page.
One large & common problem in communication is when someone
within a specific field of study or profession insist on enforcing
their
specialized word use. Clearly this is not a smart move. That is to
say, given the number of fields of studies and professions out there,
and just how common specialized word use is, conflicts would be
inevidable. Instead of providing clarity in communication, which the
specialized word use was meant to provide, the result can only
be muddled communication.
What is the alternative? Should everyone turn into modern Americans,
where the text books have been "dumbed down" to the vocabulary of an
eight-year-old child?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Language (dealing with fundies) |
26 Oct 2006 03:40:20 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
What is the alternative?
To..... what?
The answer to my question should point you to the
answer to your question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
