Literal isn’t Lazy

[Margot]

I’ve been thinking a lot about words. It’s what I do. To me, words are a science. Communication is a science. I say one thing, and I can get this reaction. I say another and I can get a different reaction. Each word is like an atom, each sentence is a molecule, and each reaction is real, definable, and profound. Changing one word is changing the entire equation. This is why I love words. This is why I love writing.

Our words, our communication skillz, set us miles apart from all the other scurrying animals on the face of the earth. We can convey our thoughts to one another through our words and our syntax, and that means we can form communities. We can organize our thoughts coherently, we can organize ourselves coherently, and we can be as clear as humanly possible as doing so.

So this is why, whenever I hear a word that doesn’t really deserve to exist (“crunk,” for example), or a definition that is just too stupid to be tolerated I am reminded of the Natalie Portman rap. Specifically these lines: “Don’t test when I’m crazy on that airplane glue/ put my foot down your throat/ till your shit’s in my shoe.”

Literal isn’t lazy. Words are not nearly as gooey as people think they are. They are the absolute most solid creations the human mind has brought forth. More importantly, word meanings aren’t as gooey as people think they are. Literal isn’t lazy. Yet, the more simple the word, the more implications we associate with them. The more Latin we speak, the dumber we become.

For example: most people’s minds will leap to the concept of active renunciation when they hear the word “atheism.” Only, where in that word do you see renunciation? No where. What you see is “without a belief in a God or gods.” Atheism isn’t against God, nor does it deny that one exists. Many dictionaries will tell you that “atheism” is the belief that there is, in fact, no God at all! Does that make sense? Can your logical mind agree with that conclusion?

Literal isn’t lazy. Nor is it wrong. Why would we choose to convolute our speech by definitions that aren’t literal?

I gravitate towards the word “atheism” because the distorted definition is an emotionally charged one. There is nothing emotional or loaded in the definition “without a belief in a God or gods.” To actively renounce, however, is a completely different notion with a completely emotional context. Why? Why do we value the less literal, more emotional definition? That’s like saying “Logos? Fuck logos. We don’t need no stinkin’ logos! Shit! People are strictly emotional. PATHOS is where it’s at!” And so many logos-logical people go along with it!

The word better suited towards the concept that is colloquially described as “atheism” would be well, “antitheism.” Anti- against, theism- the belief in a God or gods.

What gets me is how arbitrarily we define these words when we’re not defining them literally. There is no reason to toss opposition into atheism. But more importantly, why don’t we charge all words with obscure, ill-(or un-)founded definitions? What emotional response does the word “ambidextrous” illicit? None, you say? Why on Earth would that be? Same basic formula as the composition of the word “atheism,” after all! Modifying, unemotional prefix+basic, unemotional root= coherent word.

Literal isn’t lazy. No! In fact, I posit that literal is the most intelligent--the absolute best--form of communication.

I challenge you to think about your words. Not just “atheism,” but all of them. I challenge you to be scientific.

[WFCY]

lol, would u like to revive our discussion to the point before ur 6th post to me? Damage control is for a try-hard's.

I was waiting for a time when I could drink alone for the entertainments to ensue, but alas, been busy entertaining a bunch of ladies lately, and contrary to your silly groupie's failed attempt at putting me down, I have pictures to prove it. But I guess evidence was never substance enough to the likes of you.

oh, care to tell me if it is "groupy" or "groupie"? My engrish is so bad I have a proof reading slave following me to wherever I go. He likes to slap me whenever I make a mis-punctuation, and does a far better job than all my internet volunteers combined! But if you slap me harder in the right places, I may consider replacing him.

ps: thanks for the sex education, and telling me the importance of eating one's own shit as part of the healthy diet. Soon you will be relishing it.

[The Drunk Guy]

What I find amazing is that Margot continues to attempt this conversation. It's like arguing with a troll. No matter how many times you attempt to pull the argument back on topic, he just keeps sliding back into spiteful personal insults and childish wordplay.

[WFCY]

It saves a hell lot of everybody's time to discuss my ability of the engrish language (or lack of theroff), especially when we have got the FIFA to watch! Let's just look at the facts- if I don't understand or agree with something, it must be the other guy who cannot speak engrish! This is more convincing if I just rationalize about his place of residency, nationality, looks or last name, etc, those misspelling and punctuations certainly defeats every semantic substance there is in one's words, that is why proof readers are also great thinkers and political leaders! afaik, I presistently exposeded my inability of the engrish language, aka inferiority on every subject I talk about, being completely cooperative in complying to Margot's desperate need to be on the upper hand! And I thought I was doing everybody especially her a favor- talk about being gratuitous, geez. Would u guys like a cookie?

(do you spell it gratuteous or gratuitous?? theroff or therof??)

[dilettante]

I don't really have a stake in the definition of "atheism" debate (and I don't understand the three posts above mine), but I'd like to respond to this:

I’ve been thinking a lot about words. It’s what I do. To me, words are a science. Communication is a science. I say one thing, and I can get this reaction. I say another and I can get a different reaction. Each word is like an atom, each sentence is a molecule, and each reaction is real, definable, and profound. Changing one word is changing the entire equation. This is why I love words. This is why I love writing.
....
Literal isn’t lazy. Words are not nearly as gooey as people think they are. They are the absolute most solid creations the human mind has brought forth. More importantly, word meanings aren’t as gooey as people think they are. Literal isn’t lazy. Yet, the more simple the word, the more implications we associate with them. The more Latin we speak, the dumber we become.

I sympathize with your love of words and writings, but oddly enough that very affection makes me recoil from the notion of words as 'science'. In fact, one of my favorite things about words and language is how "gooey" they can be, especially in fiction and poetry. One of my favorite poems is ee cumming's "anyone lived in a pretty how town." I love the way it conveys meaning and emotion, and even tells a recognizable story, almost entirely through nonsensical phrases. If you read all the words and phrases literally, it's a meaningless jumble, but if you're willing to let the language be flexible, to let it be "gooey," than it's quite beautiful.

Furthermore, I love the way that poem can mean different things to different people, or even mean different things to me at different times. Scientific experiments are supposed to be repeatable. If Force=Mass*Acceleration is true today than it had darn well better be true tomorrow. But the meaning of words changes with place, time and individual person. The same word can mean something different today than it did 200 years ago, or than it does 200 miles away. The adaptability of language is at times confusing, but its also wonderful in its way.

Anyway, I agree with you that "literal isn't lazy"; sometimes it's absolutely essential. But there's so much more to language, to words, than just their literal meaning, and I'd hate to see that belittled.

[Michael]

Likewise, I haven't a clue what the topic is here or what you are all taking about.

I also agree with dilettante here that the beauty of words is their imprecision. Language is not mathematics and I've always found one of the best ways to annoy people generally is to insist upon the literal meaning of their words and sentences. :shrug:

* * *

Anyway, I'll just point out the curious history of the word "atheism" - that its actual origin has a meaning entirely different from the literal meaning of the word and totally different than the common usage of the term.

The word originates a as a Christian term of abuse applied to other Christians whom they feel are not supporting the institutional church with sufficient vigor. Indeed, the term was originally used by theists against other theists! :lol:

It is only in the later half of the 20th century that the term has entered public usage and immediately started taking on whole different meanings, of which, the literal meaning is probably the least common and least functional. And of course, some Christians will use the term in its original sense AND in its new sense almost similtaneously! :shrug:

About the only thing that is certain about the word is that its literal meaning is almost never invoked, understood or favored by anyone.

(I find the word so dysfunctional that I prefer the term "adeist" to describe my religious viewpoint)

[Margot]

It wasn't to anyone in particular. I was just thinking about communication, and how we define words. This was definitely inspired (in part) by my conversation with WFCY, but honestly, it isn't about it. (BTW, thanks, bro. Not like I didn't post that for a reason, or anything.)


My point is to get people--everyone--to think very specifically, very scientifically, very deliberately, about how they communicate.

Language is such useful tool that I think we forget how it works. It's like muscle memory: if you're walking through your house at night, you know where everything is, and you can navigate without sight. It's cool. We can get through to our beds without barking our shins. But if we think about trying to navigate that room, suddenly we're aware of all the pitfalls. We're in danger of tripping, because we're aware of what we don't know. We turn on the light.

That's what I'm trying to say. Not with just "atheism," but with all words.

I brought up the word "atheism" because it illustrates my point. The word is NOT dysfunctional. We are. Turn on the light. Think scientifically.

[Margot]

I don't really have a stake in the definition of "atheism" debate (and I don't understand the three posts above mine), but I'd like to respond to this:



I sympathize with your love of words and writings, but oddly enough that very affection makes me recoil from the notion of words as 'science'. In fact, one of my favorite things about words and language is how "gooey" they can be, especially in fiction and poetry. One of my favorite poems is ee cumming's "anyone lived in a pretty how town." I love the way it conveys meaning and emotion, and even tells a recognizable story, almost entirely through nonsensical phrases. If you read all the words and phrases literally, it's a meaningless jumble, but if you're willing to let the language be flexible, to let it be "gooey," than it's quite beautiful.

Furthermore, I love the way that poem can mean different things to different people, or even mean different things to me at different times. Scientific experiments are supposed to be repeatable. If Force=Mass*Acceleration is true today than it had darn well better be true tomorrow. But the meaning of words changes with place, time and individual person. The same word can mean something different today than it did 200 years ago, or than it does 200 miles away. The adaptability of language is at times confusing, but its also wonderful in its way.

Anyway, I agree with you that "literal isn't lazy"; sometimes it's absolutely essential. But there's so much more to language, to words, than just their literal meaning, and I'd hate to see that belittled.


You think there isn't science in that? You think Mr. Cummings didn't choose his words? You think he wasn't aware of the equation? Even ambiguity is measured--don't think that it isn't.

You think I just threw out "gooey" without thinking about it? There was science to it, and the reaction towards it was expected. "Gooey," and "skillz," weren't accidents.

Not recognizing the science of words, the science of syntax, is the greatest failing in communication.

And I beg you, show me one word where the literal meaning is less powerful than the "gooey" meaning. Lawd knows, Creative Writing 101's mantra is "SHOW DON'T TELL. Create CONCRETE IMAGES, avoid CLICHE. AMBIGUITY IS CREATED THROUGH THE CONCRETE." I can send you the Powerpoint, if you like. Hell, I could probably even send you my professor. She loves to share the mantra.

When you read your Cummings poem, do you not first think about the literal acts of "sowing" and "reaping?" The jarring juxtaposition of "he sang his didn't he danced his did" is supposed to bring your mind with it. "Sing," the verb, comes before the noun. You think about singing before you think about the abstract noun. Cummings is bringing the abstract into the literal, not the other way around. It's like he's pointing to it and saying "LOOK AT HOW FUCKING WEIRD THIS IS." The literal is still profound. The literal is still primary. Without the literal, the "gooey" means nothing.

People are always the variable, words aren't. That's my argument. Prove to me why words should be variable. Show me where that is effective.

[dilettante]

People are always the variable, words aren't. That's my argument.

What do you mean when you say 'words aren't variable'? How do words have any existence apart from people? It's not as if a word has some transcendent objective meaning to which we are obliged to conform. We invent words, why should we not be able to change them, to bend them?

The word "atheist" (or any other word) means whatever people take it to mean. If everyone in the world except you thought that "atheist" meant some sort of finger sandwich stuffed with bacon and spinach, then it would be you, not them, who was impeding clarity by sticking to an out-dated and obscure definition. And using words to impede clarity sabotages the whole purpose of language.

Now I strongly agree with you that we should all think carefully about how we choose our words and consider how they will be interpreted. But that should be the deciding factor: 'How will this be interpreted?' 'Will it convey what I want it to convey?' Not 'Is this the literal (or scientific) meaning of the word?'

WRT to cummings, I have no doubt that he carefully considered each word in that poem. But quite obviously, upon consideration, he decided that he could better convey what he wanted to convey if he did not tie himself to the literal meanings. You can't literally "dance a didn't". The literal meanings certainly come to mind and are (as you said) jarring. But if you stop there, jarred by the nonsensical nature of the literal definitions, then you miss the beauty of the poem. You have to, you're meant to, go beyond the literal.

Prove to me why words should be variable. Show me where that is effective.

Well, I could refer you to the finger sandwich example, or back to cummings (one of the beauties of the poem is that it can mean different things), or you can simply look at almost any word in the OED.

"Humour" once referred to particular bodily fluids. Over time it also came to refer to moods associated with those fluids. Now it still can refer to moods as well as to things which cause amusement, but we've pretty much abandoned the original meaning altogether. And yet we still have a perfectly good and useful word.

It would only hinder our ability to communicate if we demanded that "humour" must only be used in its original sense.

And, good lord, what would become of Shakespeare if we demanded a literal interpretation of all his words and phrases?

[WFCY]

Likewise, I haven't a clue what the topic is here or what you are all taking about.

I also agree with dilettante here that the beauty of words is their imprecision. Language is not mathematics and I've always found one of the best ways to annoy people generally is to insist upon the literal meaning of their words and sentences. :shrug:


It's a little old discussion Margot and I had on facebook while ago. About 6 exchanges into it the topic turned into smack at my inability to comprehend and express in the english language. She was not only able to tell me what my religious beliefs were, but also what a stupid foreigner I am, quote: "you live in Germany.... your grammar, punctuation, and general language mechanics suck." basically all the way til the end- she even took up a couple of intentionally placed baits to prove my point. lol, you can imagine the entertainments that she and her friends had provided me to be gloating up here to you about. But I am not the one to blame, she wants to rekindle this discussion here because I guess it wasn't enough for her ego.

Words are not science. Or else we would not need science, or formal languages such as propositional or predicate logic, or more descriptive ones such as montague grammar or lambda calculous, etc, to express and communicate sicentific information. By drawing up a wishy-washy metaphor between expression and reaction of human interactions, with that of chemical/physical causal-effect relations, does not equate them on the same level of verifiability, precision, or objectivity. Human behavior is not the same as atoms or plate tectonics. It's like economics is not high school algebra, one always add up in the end, there is right or wrong for your teachers to grade, the other is about human behavior which nobody could predict for certain over the course of years into the future, and is usually ideologically driven (likewise with political "science"). Margot wants to drive her point with the metaphor in the op- well, philosophers like Feigl, Ayer, Popper, Kuhn, etc, all in fact drew up a bunch of criterias one simply had to check em up before open one's clueless mouth (all these names and terms I'd be happy to explain in a new thread after Germany wins FIFA, before that I am strained on time). Natural language does not pass any of them, this is not even factoring in that people often deliberately lie. That is why Frege had to come up with something more precise, based on bivalency in his Sinn und Bedeutung. These (Frege's and others after him) formal languages are partial in the sense that they describe only a fraction of the meanings that are available in human interaction, and a very small fraction, so there are certain statements in our languages which can be classified as analytic/a priori truths or empirical/posterori truths, as per logical positivism for example, and so on. Religious beliefs and its classifications, happens to not belong to them. I should also say, Margot's definition of Atheism is her own, and insufficient if not outright wrong as a standard definition compared to what is currently available, but that is another topic.

There are ofc people who had to use their limited knowledge in one field to claim authority over all the others. People in PR does it for a profession, but an occational charlatan here and there, or just an ignorant kid trying to prove something. I suppose if you can write beautiful prose with fancy metaphors and flash around buzz words one only find in an SAT study brochure, suddenly science is everything you say it is, and the laws of gravity is reduced to Virginia Woolf. Pseudo science is just that. Congratulations.

[Margot]

What do you mean when you say 'words aren't variable'? How do words have any existence apart from people? It's not as if a word has some transcendent objective meaning to which we are obliged to conform. We invent words, why should we not be able to change them, to bend them?

The word "atheist" (or any other word) means whatever people take it to mean. If everyone in the world except you thought that "atheist" meant some sort of finger sandwich stuffed with bacon and spinach, then it would be you, not them, who was impeding clarity by sticking to an out-dated and obscure definition. And using words to impede clarity sabotages the whole purpose of language.

No, officer, you don't have to give me a ticket. I get to dictate the rules, because I'm part of the society that created them.

You're still not thinking scientifically, though. That's my whole point. Language has a set of formal rules. Grammar is a set of formal rules. Words--and their structures--are a set of formal rules. Word definitions outside of the set of formal rules are arbitrary. We are the arbitrary factor. Large scale arbitrariness is no different from small-scale arbitrariness. The only difference is that, by defining words literally and not arbitrarily, it isn't arbitrary at all!

Remember, people used Ptolomy's half-scale map for years and years. It was the general consensus, and it was fucking wrong.

Again, I ask you, how is it more clear to define words arbitrarily, rather than by their... meanings?




Now I strongly agree with you that we should all think carefully about how we choose our words and consider how they will be interpreted. But that should be the deciding factor: 'How will this be interpreted?' 'Will it convey what I want it to convey?' Not 'Is this the literal (or scientific) meaning of the word?'

WRT to cummings, I have no doubt that he carefully considered each word in that poem. But quite obviously, upon consideration, he decided that he could better convey what he wanted to convey if he did not tie himself to the literal meanings. You can't literally "dance a didn't". The literal meanings certainly come to mind and are (as you said) jarring. But if you stop there, jarred by the nonsensical nature of the literal definitions, then you miss the beauty of the poem. You have to, you're meant to, go beyond the literal.

Without the literal words aren't beautiful. It is through the comparison of the jarring juxtaposition with the inferred meaning that you are finding your beauty. However ninja feces aminal!!!!!! dragoncrayon.

Or, in other words, without the touchstone of the set structure of language, Cummings means nothing.

Enough people saying something doesn't mean that they are correct, or coherent. Just look at Sarah Palin et al.

Do you think that science and beauty are mutually exclusive? Do you think that the science behind communication isn't beautiful, or can't be? I think words are more beautiful for it.

So again, can you think about words scientifically?



Well, I could refer you to the finger sandwich example, or back to cummings (one of the beauties of the poem is that it can mean different things), or you can simply look at almost any word in the OED.

"Humour" once referred to particular bodily fluids. Over time it also came to refer to moods associated with those fluids. Now it still can refer to moods as well as to things which cause amusement, but we've pretty much abandoned the original meaning altogether. And yet we still have a perfectly good and useful word.

It would only hinder our ability to communicate if we demanded that "humour" must only be used in its original sense.

And, good lord, what would become of Shakespeare if we demanded a literal interpretation of all his words and phrases?

"Humor" did once refer to bodily fluids. It also simultaneously referred to the moods and traits that were associated with said bodily fluids. Over time, you are correct, "humor" has come describe only those moods. The newly defined, more indistinct word has become synonymous with the preexisting nouns and adjectives that were commonly used during the Early Modern Era.

Shakespeare, like Cummings, used the literal before he used the abstract. The malapropisms, riposte, word play, they're all self-aware. Or do you think Shakespeare wasn't totally aware of everything he did? You think the literal wasn't the inspiration to gems like this: "Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons." (Much Ado About Nothing), or, more to your aim, Hamlet's "crowner's quest?"

Let us ponder Hamlet's "crowner's quest" further. We all know Hamlet: Dad's murdered by the uncle, who is banging the mother, who is cold and distant to the son, who should have been king, except that dad was murdered by the uncle, who is banging the mother...


The "crowner's quest" is referenced by a clown, and we all recognize the malapropism (we're burying Ophelia at this point). Sure, we know that we're actually talking about the coroner, but we think about the crown first. Remember, crazy royal love triangles abound! The beauty still stems from the literal.




The goo of the word is still oozing from the vent of literalism.

[Mind's Eye]

Not having a history with any of you, nor not having a clue as to what detritus I may be wading into, I would submit that words, like all human emotions-based communication, are infinitely pliable ( gooey ).

Rather than reiterate what others have said, I will simply leave it at this -
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a word is also worth a thousand pictures.

[Margot]

Not having a history with any of you, nor not having a clue as to what detritus I may be wading into, I would submit that words, like all human emotions-based communication, are infinitely pliable ( gooey ).

Rather than reiterate what others have said, I will simply leave it at this -
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a word is also worth a thousand pictures.

OK, find me a thousand non-literal pictures for..."cantaloupe."

[Greendruid]

I get a little bit of what you're saying here Margot. There are some truly amazing ... cross-references to the historical development of words that are embedded in their current usages. Some words, as many have pointed out, have gone through some upheavals and changes such that their original meanings are lost and even counterpointed to their current usages. Indeed, there are some revealing truths about word selection. I've often noted to Michael that he has a Germanic slant to his English word choice whereas I have a Latin slant to mine.

However, I think that you will find that if you do some digging into the topic of phonology and linguistic semantics (and there's a word that gets mangled out of that specific context) that the words of other languages do not behave as simply as you may think. I don't know if you speak any other languages at all but there are, in some languages, administrative bodies dedicated to the measured and metered usage of words within said language. French is the easiest example of this. English lacks one.

Words are organic. I wouldn't use the word gooey because I find that to be too nebulous a term. Now, organic can certainly be viewed scientifically, as Margot has suggested. But, we can't really appreciate the oyster or the bacterium or the moose as life-forms without taking a step back. A moose is a mammal. It is also brown, large, smelly, beautiful, hideous, slow, fast, aggressive and peaceful. It is all these things at the same time. Words are the same in this sense I think.

Next, I present you with the riddle that is the Goidelic language branch. It defines phonological rules of noun declension and verb conjugation at irregular intervals. There have been no successful attempts to write the phonology of the Goidelic languages. The word for "girl" in Erse is "cailín". It is a ... masculine noun ... :ummm: There is no science in that other than that the apparent "form" of the phonemes is masculine for a very arbitrary reason chosen centuries before the first attempts to codify and write the language down using the Roman script.

In closing, I think that there are scientific aspects to language. We are all aware of the target definition of many of the words we use and the semantics that apply to their order, syntax, etc. However, sometimes that target can shift entirely outside of the expected and a new meaning emerges. I really puzzled at TDG's recent expletive "Fuck yo couch, Margot." The target for "couch" rests entirely outside of my known definitional zone. Many words are context-dependent, and that is not science. Slang is especially evident of this. It is almost generation-specific language. This limits the use of those words in some ways and expands them in others. Inside, "us", groups can be formed while outside, "them", groups are contemporaneously developed. The targets are key. They must be loosely agreed upon by speakers of the same language. However, I emphasise loosely - it is the necessary organic ingredient that makes language change and emerge anew a few hundred years later.

[The Drunk Guy]

I suppose if you can write beautiful prose with fancy metaphors and flash around buzz words one only find in an SAT study brochure, suddenly science is everything you say it is, and the laws of gravity is reduced to Virginia Woolf. Pseudo science is just that. Congratulations.
I would suppose that being able to name obscure philosophers and use words only found in doctorate theses would have a much greater affect on one's ego. And lame attempts to publicly humiliate someone who challenges you scholastically is quite telling of your true character. Congratulations.

[WFCY]

I would suppose that being able to name obscure philosophers and use words only found in doctorate theses would have a much greater affect on one's ego. And lame attempts to publicly humiliate someone who challenges you scholastically is quite telling of your true character. Congratulations.

your swaggering contempt for knowledge is facetious, and the level of pronounced ignorance is I'd say, pretty embarassing.

I am fairly certain that for the most part, the person I replied to knows those philosophers, and the terms of logic, scientific methods and criterion such as verifiability and falsifiability, in order to comprehend my point. Only the op, if anyone here, could lower down to your level of stubbornness when it comes to combative refusal of information. Like I said to her mother, between me and her it is about winning, not an exchange of ideas, likewise the purpose of this thread. You groupies will behave in the exact way as I have predicted on facebook- so stay the course my friend, let's see if you smack as poorly as she debates.

[The Drunk Guy]

your swaggering contempt for knowledge is facetious, and the level of pronounced ignorance is I'd say, pretty embarassing.

I am fairly certain that for the most part, the person I replied to knows those philosophers, and the terms of logic, scientific methods and criterion such as verifiability and falsifiability, in order to comprehend my point. Only the op, if anyone here, could lower down to your level of stubbornness when it comes to combative refusal of information. Like I said to her mother, between me and her it is about winning, not an exchange of ideas, likewise the purpose of this thread. You groupies will behave in the exact way as I have predicted on facebook- so stay the course my friend, let's see if you smack as poorly as she debates.
Thank you for insinuating my lack of intelligence, but you are the last person I seek approval from. My issue is not with your stance, nor with your reasoning behind that stance. Rather, it is with your lack of taste and class in the discussion leading up to you finally revealing your stance and the insults you continued to hurl while revealing (after several days and many posts) your sound and reasoned argument. I'm sure you're quite an intelligent and educated fellow, but your argumentative style is quite base and very troll-like.

I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant

[Michael]

It would appear this thread is a continuation of a discussion that began elsewhere, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions about it.

However, at the very least, can we please keep the personal comments out of this discussion? As it stands, there are some hot comments in this thread that should not be here. I dont want to see any more of them and I don't want to have to play forum cop here.

Lets try to keep/return this discussion to the civil standard that we are all accustomed to here.

And I don't want to argue about it here in this thread. Discuss the thread topic. If anyone has any issues, please pm me.

[dilettante]

You're still not thinking scientifically, though. That's my whole point. Language has a set of formal rules. Grammar is a set of formal rules. Words--and their structures--are a set of formal rules. Word definitions outside of the set of formal rules are arbitrary. We are the arbitrary factor. Large scale arbitrariness is no different from small-scale arbitrariness. The only difference is that, by defining words literally and not arbitrarily, it isn't arbitrary at all!

I agree, language involves a set of formal rules and, if we had no rules, we would have no language. I, personally, reject the idea of thinking of language "scientifically" because, when it comes to language, we make the rules and we can change them: they're entirely subjective. "Humour" once meant one thing, now it means another; we've changed the rules and that's perfectly OK.

Science, on the other hand, has an objective core to it. If F=MA is a valid rule, then we can't change it. We can't just decide that we'd rather Force=Volume*Distance and expect that to work. With science, there are right answers and our goal is to figure them out. And the answer that's true for one person is true for everyone: F=MA regardless of your culture, age or upbringing. In fact, F=MA regardless of whether anyone thinks it does or not.

My concern with thinking of words or language "scientifically", or rather, of only thinking of language scientifically, is that one risks imagining that words have a similar objective core, that there is a definition to a word that is 'right', regardless of what anyone (or everyone) thinks, and that we should never let it evolve. I'm not saying that language doesn't need formal rules (it does) and that agreed upon definitions aren't important (they are), only that we, as a culture, are the ones who make the rules and decide upon the definitions. And as long as we are all on the same page and it doesn't impede clarity, there's nothing wrong with changing the rules and letting definitions evolve.

As to the relationship between "beauty" and "science," I don't see them as in contestation at all, though "beauty" is not a scientific concept. My point is just that there's beauty and meaning in language outside, as well as within, the "scientific" or literal meaning of words. The literal can be lovely and thought-provoking, but so can the symbolic, metaphorical and emotive. So while we should never lose track of the literal, we also shouldn't be entirely constrained by it or belittle the non-literal: there's beauty and meaning there too.

[Zarquon]

I concur with dilettante and Michael with regards to the subjectivity and fluidity of language. It is after all, a human creation, not a natural/physical phenomenon.
That is, while it certainly has as set of rules (it would need to in order to serve its purpose), those rules are completely reliant on context and make sense/cohere only in the culture they were created in.

[JHC]

Aloha.

I will agree that words are "gooey". In fact, I like the word gooey for this discussion. It appears that we all understand what is meant by that in this application and therefore, I will refrain from using the quotation marks during our discussion on this topic.

See what I just did?
It may look like a leger demain. It should. If you're thinking about what I just did, it should look as if I am supporting both Margot and opposing viewpoints.
This I do not for the primary sake of placating anyone's emotional health. Although I care very deeply for many of you, I am of the opinion that backing up into unemotional, straightforward discussion is always the best method to resolve problems.

If WFCY is saying what I think he wishes to say, I agree. That is, words are inadequate to express the complexity of philosophy (as are mathematical expressions inadequate to express the complexity of nature). Thus, words become gooey.

However, we do not abandon words when communication is critical. We do not intentionally obscure meaning when our aim is to be clear. WFCY gives the example of a liar. How could we ever communicate clearly with a liar who simply uses word deliberately to obscure truth? Indeed, it is a brilliant and successful way to identify a liar as nearly all of you (one would hope), have experienced on this discussion forums and throughout life.
When two people intentionally obscure words, communication is impossible. In fact, communication is worthless. The true aim of such discussions, is a very base appeal to emotion.
When one intentionally obscures meaning through words and one does not, the liar can be identified nearly immediately by all who are not immediately subject to emotional appeal.

Examples of such intentional use of intentional obfuscation by gooey word usage: ad hominem, straw-man, fallacies of ambiguity (equivocation, in this case, is particularly relevant).

Indeed, clarification of logical fallacies are born of the need for clear communication and extremely common in uncritical debate.

As to the artistic usage of gooey-ness, I can not find fault with Margot's argument; It only works when the audience understands the rather less gooey definitions and usage. In essence, the agreed upon context, usage, and spelling, are requisite to carry off the art.

[Margot]

I get a little bit of what you're saying here Margot. There are some truly amazing ... cross-references to the historical development of words that are embedded in their current usages. Some words, as many have pointed out, have gone through some upheavals and changes such that their original meanings are lost and even counterpointed to their current usages. Indeed, there are some revealing truths about word selection. I've often noted to Michael that he has a Germanic slant to his English word choice whereas I have a Latin slant to mine.

However, I think that you will find that if you do some digging into the topic of phonology and linguistic semantics (and there's a word that gets mangled out of that specific context) that the words of other languages do not behave as simply as you may think. I don't know if you speak any other languages at all but there are, in some languages, administrative bodies dedicated to the measured and metered usage of words within said language. French is the easiest example of this. English lacks one.

Words are organic. I wouldn't use the word gooey because I find that to be too nebulous a term. Now, organic can certainly be viewed scientifically, as Margot has suggested. But, we can't really appreciate the oyster or the bacterium or the moose as life-forms without taking a step back. A moose is a mammal. It is also brown, large, smelly, beautiful, hideous, slow, fast, aggressive and peaceful. It is all these things at the same time. Words are the same in this sense I think.

Next, I present you with the riddle that is the Goidelic language branch. It defines phonological rules of noun declension and verb conjugation at irregular intervals. There have been no successful attempts to write the phonology of the Goidelic languages. The word for "girl" in Erse is "cailín". It is a ... masculine noun ... :ummm: There is no science in that other than that the apparent "form" of the phonemes is masculine for a very arbitrary reason chosen centuries before the first attempts to codify and write the language down using the Roman script.

In closing, I think that there are scientific aspects to language. We are all aware of the target definition of many of the words we use and the semantics that apply to their order, syntax, etc. However, sometimes that target can shift entirely outside of the expected and a new meaning emerges. I really puzzled at TDG's recent expletive "Fuck yo couch, Margot." The target for "couch" rests entirely outside of my known definitional zone. Many words are context-dependent, and that is not science. Slang is especially evident of this. It is almost generation-specific language. This limits the use of those words in some ways and expands them in others. Inside, "us", groups can be formed while outside, "them", groups are contemporaneously developed. The targets are key. They must be loosely agreed upon by speakers of the same language. However, I emphasise loosely - it is the necessary organic ingredient that makes language change and emerge anew a few hundred years later.

I'm not saying that all languages follow the same set laws. What I'm saying is that English has very clear laws, and our words have very clear meanings. If I were speaking French, I would include their sets of rules (as it stands, with four years of French under my belt I can still barely ask "where is the bathroom?"). I might discuss the liaison, or word genders, I would discuss the roots of their nouns and verbs. I'm not discussing the French language, but if I were, I would most definitely hold those linguistic laws to the same standard to which I hold our English examples. For example: if I were to write in French, I would include all accent marks.

A moose may be subject to many adjectives, but it is still a moose. The word is representative of the thing--not of one's relationship to it. The word "moose" means "moose." Why should I cater to your opinion of a moose when I discuss a moose? That some may find them "beautiful" and some may find them "hideous" doesn't affect the nature of the moose itself. If I choose to address the moose's other qualities, I must do so explicitly. Would you assume that I meant "fast" when I said "moose," or would I have to say "boy! Look at that moose run?"

If you assume that I mean that the moose is fast when I say "moose," you are subjecting yourself to misinformation. I have been clear, you have not.

[Mind's Eye]

OK, find me a thousand non-literal pictures for..."cantaloupe."

Now your trying to put cantaloupe in my mouth.

No matter how gooey, images , by necessity, cannot be literal.

Take your cantaloupe, for example.

How does one know it is , in fact, a cantaloupe?

Cantaloupe, American - a muskmelon with a raised netting over a smooth grayish-beige skin, pale orange flesh, large seed cavity with many seeds and a sweet, refreshing, distinctive flavor; also known as a netted melon or nutmeg melon.
Unless one knows beforehand what a cantaloupe looks like, images are meaningless.

The presence of certain physical attributes determines whether or not you are viewing a cantaloupe. W/O knowing the meanings of the words describing it, one would not know it was this particular type of melon. Words describing words is figurative.

I could as easily ask you to provide me a single, all-encompassing literal image for " heaven " or " paradise ".

Can't be done.
Your image of paradise is not likely to be mine.

[JHC]

Now your trying to put cantaloupe in my mouth.

No matter how gooey, images , by necessity, cannot be literal.

Take your cantaloupe, for example.

How does one know it is , in fact, a cantaloupe?


Unless one knows beforehand what a cantaloupe looks like, images are meaningless.

The presence of certain physical attributes determines whether or not you are viewing a cantaloupe. W/O knowing the meanings of the words describing it, one would not know it was this particular type of melon. Words describing words is figurative.

I could as easily ask you to provide me a single, all-encompassing literal image for " heaven " or " paradise ".

Can't be done.
Your image of paradise is not likely to be mine. Turn that around; if you had never seen a cantaloupe and I tried to explain it to you with words, you may not be able to taste it but you would be able to paint a picture and you would know that it would be sweet rather than bitter or sour. How?

[Greendruid]

I'm not saying that all languages follow the same set laws. What I'm saying is that English has very clear laws, and our words have very clear meanings. If I were speaking French, I would include their sets of rules (as it stands, with four years of French under my belt I can still barely ask "where is the bathroom?"). I might discuss the liaison, or word genders, I would discuss the roots of their nouns and verbs. I'm not discussing the French language, but if I were, I would most definitely hold those linguistic laws to the same standard to which I hold our English examples. For example: if I were to write in French, I would include all accent marks.

A moose may be subject to many adjectives, but it is still a moose. The word is representative of the thing--not of one's relationship to it. The word "moose" means "moose." Why should I cater to your opinion of a moose when I discuss a moose? That some may find them "beautiful" and some may find them "hideous" doesn't affect the nature of the moose itself. If I choose to address the moose's other qualities, I must do so explicitly. Would you assume that I meant "fast" when I said "moose," or would I have to say "boy! Look at that moose run?"

If you assume that I mean that the moose is fast when I say "moose," you are subjecting yourself to misinformation. I have been clear, you have not.

I really have to disagree with you entirely. I don't know if you know any other languages or not. However, if you don't then one's ignorance of them becomes the very root of the problem. English is not special. It has its own unique quirks in that it has a vocabulary likely to rival every other language that has ever been created. But it really does lack some key characteristics that other languages thrive upon. And in fact, this is where my point about the moose originates.

Words are indeed worth a thousand pictures. When you say moose, I don't just think about the animal no matter how much you'd like that to be the case. I think about it's smell, my fear of the size of the animal, the different moose I've seen in my life, where it lives. All kinds of information comes to my mind that is quite directly connected to the word in my brain and some that is quite indirectly connected.

Some languages do this in an unavoidable fashion. The Algonkian languages are a perfect example of this. The languages are verb-centred (in contrast with Indo-European languages which are noun-centred). It is quite impossible to "name" things in a detached fashion in these languages without a context to them. The nouns themselves mostly contain modified verbs that tell you something about the thing rather than the sort of arbitrary phonemes we use in English that have little or no linguistic connexion to the object they describe any more.

The abstract (inanimate) nouns in English are probably the closest we can some to this only because those abstracts are usually bound up in context for each speaker. As soon as I use one of these, my brain has a hard time not thinking about a contextual use of the abstract. For instance, if I hear the word "kiss" I can't help but think about a specific kiss or the act of kissing or the sound that a kiss makes. This inevitably and unavoidably brings up emotional ties in the brain to these specific, contextual events. A word is worth a thousand pictures.

[JHC]

I was reading a thread similar to this one on another discussion forum. The author posted an article from some Catholic authority who proposed that the problem with inadequate language use was one of increasing lack of faith.

Being me, I mulled that over for a while. I'm still mulling. Last night, while mulling all the possible problems with our communication, I gave a little more thought to our word gooey.

Anyone else find that an interesting homophone?

I'm talking about GUI of course. Graphical User Interface - pronounced gooey.
Back in the day, I worked for a large property developer. They would build golf course communities and then sell the entire community association to the homeowners over time.

Anyway, part of my job was to help select and purchase the software and hardware that would tie golf shops, restaurants and club houses, bar carts, just about everything, to accounting/finance department. This was sooooooo long ago that we were on the cutting edge when we chose GUI software for the restaurants so that they could track their inventory and report sales all by having the servers touch a screen with a picture.

:lol:

The point I'm working around to is what may be a trend away from phonemes and graphemes and toward pictures. Perhaps the Chinese have language right and yet, what happens to precision?

When we want to communicate precisely are we left with math? It is hard to argue that there is no connection there when logic in language and logic in math use very similar equations and definitions.

Don't panic! That's what my dad used to tell me about nearly everything. He was right. The more critical the task, the more important it is to be clear headed and clear in communication. Once you've mastered that, the art of language follows. No good language artist is so haphazardly.

[Margot]

I really have to disagree with you entirely. I don't know if you know any other languages or not. However, if you don't then one's ignorance of them becomes the very root of the problem. English is not special. It has its own unique quirks in that it has a vocabulary likely to rival every other language that has ever been created. But it really does lack some key characteristics that other languages thrive upon. And in fact, this is where my point about the moose originates.

Words are indeed worth a thousand pictures. When you say moose, I don't just think about the animal no matter how much you'd like that to be the case. I think about it's smell, my fear of the size of the animal, the different moose I've seen in my life, where it lives. All kinds of information comes to my mind that is quite directly connected to the word in my brain and some that is quite indirectly connected.

Some languages do this in an unavoidable fashion. The Algonkian languages are a perfect example of this. The languages are verb-centred (in contrast with Indo-European languages which are noun-centred). It is quite impossible to "name" things in a detached fashion in these languages without a context to them. The nouns themselves mostly contain modified verbs that tell you something about the thing rather than the sort of arbitrary phonemes we use in English that have little or no linguistic connexion to the object they describe any more.

The abstract (inanimate) nouns in English are probably the closest we can some to this only because those abstracts are usually bound up in context for each speaker. As soon as I use one of these, my brain has a hard time not thinking about a contextual use of the abstract. For instance, if I hear the word "kiss" I can't help but think about a specific kiss or the act of kissing or the sound that a kiss makes. This inevitably and unavoidably brings up emotional ties in the brain to these specific, contextual events. A word is worth a thousand pictures.


Hold yer horses there, partner! What on Earth gives you the impression that I think English is "special?" Like I said, If we were speaking in French, I would be just as committed to those rules which govern the French language. If we were speaking in the language of the Glorkiin alien invaders, I would make the same demands on that language. I have not said that we should apply the English rules towards other languages. Likewise for Algonkian. I am saying that we should be scientific with language and with communication. Other languages may sound different, but my stipulation still holds.

However, I would like to turn the moose question back onto myself. I feel that it is unfair of me to put the burden onto you, since you don't seem to be understanding my basic premise in the first place.

Imagine this:
Greendruid: "So, yeah, moose--"
Margot: bursts into uncontrollable sobs, falls to the floor weeping. Tears at her own hair, leaving bald patches.

What part of the word moose brought about that reaction?

A moose is a moose. My relationship to the word is irrelevant without contextualizing that relationship to the word. Your relationship to the world is equally irrelevant. Only the word matters.

You may conjure "a thousand pictures" with just one word, but what makes you think that I can pick out which one you're trying to convey?

[Michael]

However, I would like to turn the moose question back onto myself. I feel that it is unfair of me to put the burden onto you, since you don't seem to be understanding my basic premise in the first place.

Imagine this:
Greendruid: "So, yeah, moose--"
Margot: bursts into uncontrollable sobs, falls to the floor weeping. Tears at her own hair, leaving bald patches.

What part of the word moose brought about that reaction?

A moose is a moose. My relationship to the word is irrelevant without contextualizing that relationship to the word. Your relationship to the world is equally irrelevant. Only the word matters.

You may conjure "a thousand pictures" with just one word, but what makes you think that I can pick out which one you're trying to convey?
I think this comes down to the 'supposed' purpose of any given communication.

Does one communicate (in writing or speech or otherwise) for the purpose of conveying some precise information to others for some tangible purpose? Or is it used to express one's self? Expressing one's self is valid regardless if others understand it because one's full understanding is irrelevant to someone else's self-expression.

I guess the point I'm making here is that relativism will always rear its ugly head. It is all about context. In some situations, precision of meaning is very important for conveying information, but in other situations, ambiguity or uncertainty about precise meaning might not matter.

For example, I might compose a poem that pleases me greatly (and maybe one or two of my closest friends) in which case, I might not care if you didn't fully understand or comprehend or even like that poem at all because I didn't write it for you - I composed it for myself and my small circle of friends. That's what I mean by the 'supposed purpose' of communication - it is always relative and so are the words we use and how we use them - they are very flexible.

[JHC]

I think this comes down to the 'supposed' purpose of any given communication.

Does one communicate (in writing or speech or otherwise) for the purpose of conveying some precise information to others for some tangible purpose? Or is it used to express one's self? Expressing one's self is valid regardless if others understand it because one's full understanding is irrelevant to someone else's self-expression.

I guess the point I'm making here is that relativism will always rear its ugly head. It is all about context. In some situations, precision of meaning is very important for conveying information, but in other situations, ambiguity or uncertainty about precise meaning might not matter.

For example, I might compose a poem that pleases me greatly (and maybe one or two of my closest friends) in which case, I might not care if you didn't fully understand or comprehend or even like that poem at all because I didn't write it for you - I composed it for myself and my small circle of friends. That's what I mean by the 'supposed purpose' of communication - it is always relative and so are the words we use and how we use them - they are very flexible.

I think Margot already covered this. If your friends didn't know you, then they wouldn't get it either and your expression of yourself wouldn't express anything to anyone but you.

Perhaps to your set of friends, there is a shared experience on the subject of moose such that your discussion holds separate meaning. But even amongst your niche group, you had to start with mutual understanding of definitions before any poetic license would have an effect.

The problem is when one assumes that their extra meaning is shared by all such that every time they mention moose, everyone understands why they cry and pull out their hair.

Perhaps this is only relevant to Canadians. ;)

Down here in South Florida, most folks couldn't tell a moose from a mule deer. If you engaged in a discussion about moose, you'd have to start from scratch. If you wanted them to understand your special Canadian meaning that carried some additional emotional attribute, you'd have to add that in on top of the basic meaning.

Now then, there is no denying that you and I, for instance, have a very different perspective. If I ask you to give me directions, the best possible answer would be north, south, east, west and some unit of distance. This is the basis that underlies all earthly directions. Even if it isn't what I am used to, it ensures the least amount of ambiguity.

Absolutely, context is everything. The more important a topic is, the more important it is to begin with a mutual understanding of the premise and the more important that is, the more important it is to use the least ambiguous speech.

Clearly, I'm on Margot's side and not just because she is a goddess. :angel:

To say that it is not important to be unambiguous about a particular subject is to dismiss the subject altogether as unimportant. When Margot says, FOR INSTANCE, that the literal definition of atheism is a=without theism=belief in god(s), and you argue that this is not the widely known definition, all you are saying is that it is unimportant what the literal definition is.
And, if it is unimportant as literally defined yet important as interpretively defined, then it is effectively dismissed altogether.

[dilettante]

I think this thread is crying out for a shared definition of "literal". What defines the literal meaning of a word or phrase?

Is it the commonly accepted definition?
Is it the official definition given by the language's governing body (or whatever might be closest for languages that don't have one of these)?
Is it the original definition?

If we're to look at the word "atheism", then the commonly accepted definition (at least in the US) is, roughly, one who believes God(s) do(es) not exist; the dictionary definition is either "a disbelief in the existence of deity" or "the doctrine that there is no deity"; and the original definition is akin to "ungodliness" or "wickedness" and, as Michael pointed out, was generally used with regard to some Christians by others.

IMO, all of these are "literal" definitions. As long as you use the word "atheist" in a non-symbolic, non-metaphorical sense, then you're using the word literally.

I can respect Margot's desire to break the word down into its root components, but I suggest that in this case that approach is, at best, arbitrary and open to interpretation.
She breaks it down as 'a'-negative 'theism'-belief in God => "not believing in God". Thus she has the prefix modify the belief, the 'ism'. But it makes at least as much sense to break it down as 'a'-negative 'theo'-God 'ism'-belief => (no God) belief => "the belief in no God." Here the prefix modifies 'theo' rather than 'ism'. That would follow the pattern of "polytheism" (poly-many theo-God ism-belief => (many gods) belief => belief in many gods). If we used Margot's system, we would define polytheism as "many beliefs in God", which clearly isn't right.

Anyway, at the very least, the "literal" definition should never be one that is neither the common, nor the official, nor the original use of a word. In the case of "atheism," Margot's definition is one of the official definitions, but it is not the only one nor is it the original or common usage. As such, I don't see how it has any greater claim to being the "literal" definition than the more common, equally official alternative.

[WFCY]

It is pretty amusing to see how precisely the unscientific aspects of natural language manifest itself and causes confusion in a discussion that tries to prove its scientific nature.

[WFCY]

If we're to look at the word "atheism", then the commonly accepted definition (at least in the US) is, roughly, one who believes God(s) do(es) not exist; the dictionary definition is either "a disbelief in the existence of deity" or "the doctrine that there is no deity"

This is the standard accepted definition among philosophers.

Wiki has the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) (excerpt):

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Religious_belief) in the existence of deities (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Existence_of_God). In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Notice how only in the broad sense, Atheism subsumes agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) (a belief such that the existence of god cannot be determined) and anti-theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism) (which is either a rejection of religious beliefs, or a rejection of god), but in the narrower sense, it stands on its own, independent of the two.

Stanford dictionary of philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1) states (excerpt):

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Note how it says "negation" and not "opposite" or "against". There are very nuanced differences between (denial/believe in the non-exitence), and (lack of belief), and (against the belief). I am using brackets to make things clear here- Those are three different things which make claims about different realms of human interactions.

Antitheism are primarily used in the context of talking about organized religions to mean the opposition of organized religion, where one voices his apathy towards having a religious belief and/or voices his opposition towards groups of people having such belief. Antitheism is most commonly found in religious discussions where one tries to convey how theism is dangerous and destructive for the society as a whole. Some notiable antitheists (such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins) are also atheists, but even these people themselves have made clear distinctions in their own writings of the two (e.g. Dawkin's the god delusion made a list of standard definitions as I am partially doing here).

Another type of use of the word Antitheism involves god being characterized or questioned as either not omnipotent (so by Averroës (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Averro%C3%ABs)'s paradox can be seen as antitheist), or not ominiscient, or not ominibenovelent (dystheism). In this latter case, antitheism is equivalent with misotheism.

Antitheism does not have a very prominent place in the discussion of religious philosophies because it deals primarily with social attitudes and moral values. It does not make specific claims about doxastic relations (belief relations) or epistemologícal status (knowledge). However, it can be consistent to say atheists are antitheist and vice versa in some contexts, because they certainly overlap one another- a person who opposes organized religion (religious beliefs) may as well deny the existence of god. And those who deny his existence may very well oppose others' belief in such a god. These are not mutually exclusive. Likewise for agnostics and antitheists.

Some related notions: Pantheism view the universe as either created by some supreme being, or is equated with that supreme being. It is not necessary that this supreme being is anthropomorphic or be identified to some person. Patheists generally do not believe in a omnipresent god who governs the universe after its creation. Moral issues therefore are independent of god. Theists on the other hand, believes not only in a creater, but also a god who is responsible for the unfolding events between human beings (and all of his creations ofc), which entails god is ultimately responsible for right or wrong. Again, these are by no means mutually exclusive in terms of definition- a pantheist could possibly be an atheist, depending on how broadly the defitions used, as per Stanford dictionary of philosophy:

pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief.

(Atheism vs agnosticism continued)

[Lily]

This is all very interesting. It would seem to me that for any two people to communicate effectively, they would first have to come to an agreement on a definition of a word. I suppose one could argue all day long about the "common" definition of the word "atheism" vs. the "philosophical" definition, but I'm not sure that argument would get either one any closer to an understanding or respect of the others' true position.

[WFCY]

The chief distinctions between atheism and agnosticism rests on the status of knowledge, or as some philosophers further points out, the moral consequences of belief with knowledge and belief without (e.g. Clifford's Ethics of Belief has a story of the ship sailing to the New World, and Huxley's Agnosticism) (The_Drunk_Guy: you can look em up easily yourself, I certainly am not just touting names and literatures here- I just don't want to change the subject all the time trying to explain everything). The central claim being- regardless of your level of sincerety in what you believe, some which may or may not be self-serving, belief without certainty in knowledge is always immoral, and therefore we cannot be either theists or atheists, as both of these makes a claim on not just one's belief, but a belief that necessarily rests on knowledge. Only with justified belief, or belief with full knowledge, can we make religious statements such as "there is a god", or "there is no god" that are moral, since our belief in god often entail exhortations or imperatives relating to other people. (And if one can always keep one's religious belief completely private, then the moral argument is irrelevant- except for when one is harmed by one's own false beliefs).

There is a related but independent second point here- for some people such as the empircists (like Hume, or Mill), or later the Modernists and Logical Positivists, justified belief is significant not based on moral grounds, but based on the principles in which statements' truth value can be derived. Both theism and atheism suffer the same problem in that statements such as "there is a god", or "there is no god" cannot be verified scientifically. They are in a sense, nonsense, this is another ground for someone to be agnostic.

Let me elaborate the first point a little futher and then move onto the second. The definition of agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) (excerpt):


Agnosticism is the view that the truth value (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Truth_value) of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Deity), but also other religious and metaphysical (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Metaphysics) claims—is unknown or unknowable... agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Belief) and knowledge (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Knowledge), rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Stanford dictionary of philosophy makes the following distinctions (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1) between agnosticism and atheism (excerpt):


To give a correct and fully general account of the nature of justified belief is difficult and inevitably controversial... nevertheless for the present purpose of distinguishing atheism from agnosticism it is good enough to treat knowledge as at least justified true belief... Later we shall look at the question of whether we should say that an atheist is someone who claims to know that there is no God or someone who at any rate believes this.


So an atheist is either- someone who claims to know there is no god, or who does not know, but nevertheless believes the non-existence of a god. An agnostic lacks such belief. This is consistent with the definition provided in my previous post.

The above does not seem to be a wholly satisfying or clear enough distinction, but it does make justified beleif, or belief with knowledge, a key criteria that sets agnostics apart from atheists. It continues with an example:


In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague....

Here it has been assumed that Philo regards ‘God exists’ (vagueness apart) as an intelligible sentence to which truth or falsity can be ascribed. If he thinks that the conception of deity is so obscure or so permissive that no truth value can be ascribed to ‘God exists’, perhaps he should extend the notion of ‘atheist’ to cover his position also. “Agnostic’ might suggest that there is something to be agnostic about.

(In the above discussion I have used the argument from the fine tuning as an example of something in the grey area between science and metaphysics. There may be other plausible arguments for theism that Philo could consider, and together with further applications of the Bayesian formula the plausibility might be increased in every case. Nevertheless it still might be quite small even in toto. I am assuming that all the arguments are from plausibility considerations and so can reinforce one another. Of course if the arguments fail because of faults in pure logic, then they do not reinforce one another. The conjunction of several logically bad arguments is indeed no better than one logically bad argument.

Even if various philosophers or theologians use the word ‘God’ in different ways are such that their words are quite unintelligible then they can hardly be said to defend theism. As I have suggested, a logical positivist such as the young A. J. Ayer (Ayer 1936) would have at least been less misleading if he called himself an atheist rather than an agnostic. He neither believes nor disbelieves in God, like the agnostic, but he does not think, as I take it that someone who called himself an agnostic would, that God either exists or does not exist but he does not know which.)


Again, the demonstrations by the author above seems unsatisfactory- The only reason I could attribute to this is precisely because natural language is not scientific and not precise enough. A statement such as "There is a god" or a statement such as "There is no god" is a matter of probability when justified belief, aka, knowledge, is involved in the evaluation of such statements- As the author suggests, we ought to apply methods of verification, external to the natural languages we speak, which contrary to natural languages, are scientific in nature, in order to determine the meaning or truths of those statements. There are further problems in applying scientific methods to prove the non-existence of things, which is why statements of existence is either positively proved, or matters of probabily when positive proof is absent.

The external methods of verification mentioned by the author and me, such as Bayesian/Confirmation theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/), or the Demarcation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem) mostly attributed to Positivists such as Ayer, will be extensively discussed in another thread which I intend to follow up in the near future.

As we can see, the discussion of Atheism vs Agnosticism touches upon several philosophical issues. On the one hand, it deals with morality, which is phasing out in philosophical discussions of the modern and postmodern era. On the other hand, it deals with philosophy of language, the way in which we evaluate truth or falsity of statements in natural language, statements which are intrisically very imprecise, ambiguous and by no means suitable for communicating scientific knowledge.

There are however, pragmatic and practical grounds for making a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which will be continued in my next post.

[dilettante]

This is all very interesting. It would seem to me that for any two people to communicate effectively, they would first have to come to an agreement on a definition of a word. I suppose one could argue all day long about the "common" definition of the word "atheism" vs. the "philosophical" definition, but I'm not sure that argument would get either one any closer to an understanding or respect of the others' true position.


:agree:

[WFCY]

There are however, pragmatic and practical grounds for making a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which will be continued in my next post.

I was in the process of posting a reply to the above this morning, then there was a server outage- I lost all that I have written. :mad:

I am going to see if I can write it all up all over again.

[WFCY]

This is all very interesting. It would seem to me that for any two people to communicate effectively, they would first have to come to an agreement on a definition of a word. I suppose one could argue all day long about the "common" definition of the word "atheism" vs. the "philosophical" definition, but I'm not sure that argument would get either one any closer to an understanding or respect of the others' true position.

It is important indeed to agree on definitions when communicating. However, the next question would be "who's definition shall we go by?". Well, in philosophical discussions, often there are standardly accepted definitions available on subjects which people have established- precisely because others before us have gone through the same process as we are about to, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel all over again, to try to come up with new definitions from scratch.

However, and without appealing to authority, let us simply ask- why should we use the "common" definition (in Lily's words), if there is one, above the "philosophical" definition? This begs the question- What is the "common" definition if it is not the philosophical one when involved in a philosophical discussion about religion?

I am by no means a Sophist, and I am not interested in vacuous rhetorics. So I will simply say that there is probabily none- unless one strongly believes that one's own personal definition, is conventionally, widly, and popularly accepted by everybody else in the world. When one is not knowledgable about the issue she speaks of, one often believe that to be true, that she really could make a claim on the definition of a pre-existing word with a pre-existing definition because of her own ingenuity, there just might be a chance where she outshines all the thousands of years of her forerunners and overwrites them. Unfortunatly, the self-righteous "common" definition usually don't outshine its forerunners, and have a very short lifespan when serious people are involved, which is why people need to study and have some basic understandings about the topics in which they talk about.

I have so far demonstrated the overlaps of the definitions of the terms involved, but there are certain key basis for their distinction nevertheless- so for example, Antitheism differs from atheism in that it is an opposition to the belief of a god in some social context addressing topics related to organized religion, or opposition of god (questioning/denying the key definitions which constitutes god), whilest atheism is the explicit denial of god's existence, or a belief of his non-existence, both of which runs into the problem that there cannot be positive proofs of non-existence, and therefore atheism is a belief not based on knowledge alone, or certainly not based on knowledge which are verifiable via scientific methods. This epistemological problem is what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism- not because people who claim to be agnostic wish to appear sophiscated- but rather, some makes the distinction based on moral grounds (like Clifford), some held onto their integrity as scientists and modern philosophers- there just couldn't be a justified belief either way.

The way in which we convey these distinctions with our language is also intricate, and worth looking into. I have mentioned in the earlier posts-(denial/believe in the non-exitence), (lack of belief), (against the belief), are three different things. If it is not entirely clear at this point, I will give examples to distinguish them.

Making a statement such as "There is no unicorn in the world" is the denial/ believe in the non-existence of unicorns- an "a-unicornist", if I may exploit our very primitive "common" language for a moment. The prerequisite of this statement being true is that I know/have positive proof that there are no unicorns. Clearly I do not have a justified belief when making such statements. Now if you replace "unicorn" with "god", you have atheism.

"Either there are unicorns/is the unicorn, or there are no unicorns/is no unicorn", is the lack of belief in the existence of unicorns (Margot: Kind of like saying, per Grice, "I don't believe in existence of unicorns, but if there are some unicorns which I am not aware of somewhere, fuck it"). The person making the statement can be said to be an "ag-unicornist". He does not know nor can he pass verdict with his own knowledge, affirmative or otherwise on the subject of the existence of unicorns. Or, suppose someone is not even aware of what a unicorn is (say, he is from the Amazons or Tibet), and hears the above statement (or its negation), he obviously cannot decide either way- but he can still say "either X or Y", or "Not X, or if Y, etc", X being affirmative of the unicorn's existence, and Y being the negation of unicorn's existence. Now if you replace "unicorn" with "god", you have agnosticism.

"I oppose the belief in unicorns/You should never believe in a unicorn", and "I am against unicorns (presupposing that they exist already)", are "anti-unicornist". Against the belief of X, or against X. If you replace "unicorn" with "god", you have antitheism.

Different terms are used differently, in fact, defined differently by philosophers who came to pass, the "philosophical definition" in Lily's words- for precisely the reason that we do not want to confuse ourselves in relevant discussions due to their commonalities. There are certainly overlaps in religious concepts, but when all three (atheism, agnosticism, antitheism), or all two (atheism, agnosticism) are involved in a discussion at the same time, then their overlaps must take a backseat, and their differences be accentuated. This is not because we want to look like smart asses, it is because we want to avoid confusion! The same thing could be said about a discussion about the differences between modern conservativism vs neoliberalism, or communism vs socialism, or catholicism vs protestantism. Nobody wants to argue whether sugar is an ingredient when talking about the differences between coke and pepsi. It would be a futile and stupid effort based on misconceptions of the topic.

I mean, this is why even within agnosticism and atheism, there are strong vs weak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism), and explicit vs implicit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism). The distinctions become important when certain subjects are invloved, I won't go into the minute details as the links are already provided. The point remains, and I think it should be fairly clear by now, philosophical discussions assume established terms and definition unless you have a reason to ignore them. But then the burden of proof is on the one who ignores the established definitions. To flout them and to expect everybody else to abide by one's own personal definitions, is intentionally misleading if not outright demonstrating one's own ignorance about the subject matter in which she is talking about.

[WFCY]

The point remains, and I think it should be fairly clear by now, philosophical discussions assume established terms and definition unless you have a reason to ignore them. But then the burden of proof is on the one who ignores the established definitions. To flout them and to expect everybody else to abide by one's own personal definitions, is intentionally misleading if not outright demonstrating one's own ignorance about the subject matter in which she is talking about.

I should also note, that there are certain merits and places for "common" definitions as in the sense of some mental image which is gradually and cumulatively established over the course of a dialogue and utilized for expedience in communication. This is also known as Stalnaker's "Common Ground" (http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f07/pragmatics/stalnaker02.pdf), which in part (technically and specifically, the discourse context), is a term used to describe certain temperorily established understanding between the interlocutors about certain concepts or entites that are being talked about. The prerequisite for something being "established" between the interlocutors is that it must be agreed upon either explicitly or implictly by all the participants of the discussion/dialogue. There must be knowledge by all parties regarding this agreement, or sufficient speech act/linguistic phenomenon that indicate such agreement. If there are no such agreements about a certain subject/definition/information (suppose there is an objection about a certain definition by one party), then there the specific information does not enter the common ground. In this case, there is no "common" definition of a term such as atheism, when one objects the other's personal definitions in an exchange about religious beliefs, either online or in a face to face conversation.

Some concepts make sole use of the common ground (specifically, the discourse context) that is established throughout a conversational discourse- for example, If I were to tell you a story about my nephew, how she is stubborn and combative but utmost silly, then you would have to go with my descriptions because you do not know my nephew at all. The concept of my nephew is "common" only because you relied and accepted my descriptions.

But some concepts do not rely on pure descriptions by one speaker, they have prior, established definitions. Suppose we are two car mechanics discussing how to repair an engine- we don't start from scratch, making up our own definitions about what an engine is, what it does, or what are its constructions and so on. We come together with some common understandings about the car engine which we are trying to repair, and discuss what we think its problems might be based on that understanding. Philosophical discussions about pre-existing terms should always begin like this, instead of beginning as if one is discussing about one's own nephew who the other person is completely unaware of. To do so, would be like car mechanics arguing to each other about whether an engine should hold a cup of tea, walk your dog, or push a car forward while consuming Vaseline along its way.

[Michael]

People are always the variable, words aren't. That's my argument. Prove to me why words should be variable. Show me where that is effective.

I just found this little gem hiding on the first page of the thread. It explains a lot. :)

While I certainly will assert that words (like people) are always variable, I most certainly wouldn't dream of pretending that this is efficient or effective for anything except variety itself. I think it is just in the nature of these things themselves (people and words) that they are variable.

Now if you are asserting that words ought not to be variable, that's another issue entirely, but on the question of whether words are, or are not, actually variable, I don't think there is any doubt that they in fact are quite variable, malleable, flexible and prone to morph-like behaviors. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is yet another issue as well.

(Indeed, to judge whether any given thing is a "good or bad thing" requires that we initially define the moral compass or measuring scale to be used and that, more often than not, is even more challenging than the initial question itself! :lol: )

As for scientific precision, I think that's impossible to achieve using written words alone. Words, by definition, are symbols that represent other things. You have used the example of "moose", but that is only the word-symbol that represents a specific type of large mammal - the word itself is not an actual moose. Likewise with "atheism", that is only a word-symbol that represents an idea or social construct - it is not a thing in itself (other than as a word-symbol).

And symbols, by definition, will often admit of alternative interpretations. How can one be certain that one is reading the 'correct' interpretation of any given symbol? (since one sees/hears only the 'word-symbol' or 'word-sound') that represents a moose, not a moose itself).

And if words really do have some intrinsic or fundamental meaning specific to each word, how come we have such oddities as "leading" being the word used in the art of typography to precisely define the size of the space between two lines of type? Please keep in mind of course that the word (originally) specifically referred to the layers of actual strips of lead being used for the spacing in the ancient art of manual printing (Gutenburg style).

That is to say, if the meaning of a word is intrinsic to itself, the meaning of "leading" ought to pertain to the use of lead, not the digital use of spacing on a webpage design (for example).

I certainly don't have a problem with words behaving oddly or having anachronistic origins. Indeed, I think that is what gives them character. :)

Btw, the term "boy" used to mean something entirely different than what we use that word for nowadays - a male child. That's a relatively modern application of that particular word (of no known origin!). Same is true of "girl".

Generally speaking, I find the history of the changing meanings of words over time to be very interesting. If words must be read with scientific precision, then I'm afraid that we will need a law against the use of the English language itself. As I've argued in other threads previously, the English language originates as a bastard language - which won out over time against Latin and French, which are both better suited for scientific precision. ;)

[Michael]

Not having a history with any of you, nor not having a clue as to what detritus I may be wading into, I would submit that words, like all human emotions-based communication, are infinitely pliable ( gooey ).

Rather than reiterate what others have said, I will simply leave it at this -
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a word is also worth a thousand pictures.

:thumbsup:

I agree completely. It is the infinite pliability (gooeyness?) of words that gives them their only charm. :D

[Michael]

Words are not science. Or else we would not need science, or formal languages such as propositional or predicate logic, or more descriptive ones such as montague grammar or lambda calculous, etc, to express and communicate sicentific information. By drawing up a wishy-washy metaphor between expression and reaction of human interactions, with that of chemical/physical causal-effect relations, does not equate them on the same level of verifiability, precision, or objectivity. Human behavior is not the same as atoms or plate tectonics. It's like economics is not high school algebra, one always add up in the end, there is right or wrong for your teachers to grade, the other is about human behavior which nobody could predict for certain over the course of years into the future, and is usually ideologically driven (likewise with political "science"). Margot wants to drive her point with the metaphor in the op- well, philosophers like Feigl, Ayer, Popper, Kuhn, etc, all in fact drew up a bunch of criterias one simply had to check em up before open one's clueless mouth (all these names and terms I'd be happy to explain in a new thread after Germany wins FIFA, before that I am strained on time). Natural language does not pass any of them, this is not even factoring in that people often deliberately lie. That is why Frege had to come up with something more precise, based on bivalency in his Sinn und Bedeutung. These (Frege's and others after him) formal languages are partial in the sense that they describe only a fraction of the meanings that are available in human interaction, and a very small fraction, so there are certain statements in our languages which can be classified as analytic/a priori truths or empirical/posterori truths, as per logical positivism for example, and so on. Religious beliefs and its classifications, happens to not belong to them. I should also say, Margot's definition of Atheism is her own, and insufficient if not outright wrong as a standard definition compared to what is currently available, but that is another topic.
I'm not familiar with Feigl at all, but quite familiar with the others. I've actually been re-reading some Popper lately. I really like some of his ideas. :)

And yes, I agree that many words certainly do have formalized meanings and that this is necessary for formalized interpretations (i.e. science and/or philosophy). What is most annoying is that when these words appear in popular culture (such as "atheism") they tend to take on whole new meanings quite apart from their scientific or philosophic definitions. This causes no end of confused discussions on forums! :lol:

There are ofc people who had to use their limited knowledge in one field to claim authority over all the others. People in PR does it for a profession, but an occational charlatan here and there, or just an ignorant kid trying to prove something. I suppose if you can write beautiful prose with fancy metaphors and flash around buzz words one only find in an SAT study brochure, suddenly science is everything you say it is, and the laws of gravity is reduced to Virginia Woolf. Pseudo science is just that. Congratulations.
When they are good at it, it is called sophistry. ;)

[Michael]

Enough people saying something doesn't mean that they are correct, or coherent. Just look at Sarah Palin et al.

No, it doesn't prove coherence. But it will eventually get an entry in the dictionary regardless. :D

[Michael]

As to the artistic usage of gooey-ness, I can not find fault with Margot's argument; It only works when the audience understands the rather less gooey definitions and usage. In essence, the agreed upon context, usage, and spelling, are requisite to carry off the art.

And would not 'scientific precision' of language require rules and laws to make this universal?

English is the only language free of language cops. I think that is its greatest virtue and its only claim for beauty. :shrug:

Liberty is sweet, no matter where it is found. Liberty of language is necessary for liberty of thought.

[Michael]

I have just deleted the last four posts in this thread for being entirely offtopic and adding nothing to the discussion.

Any post that isn't about the thread topic itself will be deleted.

Lets keep this thread focused on the topic itself please.

[Michael]

I was reading a thread similar to this one on another discussion forum. The author posted an article from some Catholic authority who proposed that the problem with inadequate language use was one of increasing lack of faith.

Being me, I mulled that over for a while. I'm still mulling. Last night, while mulling all the possible problems with our communication, I gave a little more thought to our word gooey.

Anyone else find that an interesting homophone?

I'm talking about GUI of course. Graphical User Interface - pronounced gooey.
Back in the day, I worked for a large property developer. They would build golf course communities and then sell the entire community association to the homeowners over time.

Anyway, part of my job was to help select and purchase the software and hardware that would tie golf shops, restaurants and club houses, bar carts, just about everything, to accounting/finance department. This was sooooooo long ago that we were on the cutting edge when we chose GUI software for the restaurants so that they could track their inventory and report sales all by having the servers touch a screen with a picture.

:lol:

The point I'm working around to is what may be a trend away from phonemes and graphemes and toward pictures. Perhaps the Chinese have language right and yet, what happens to precision?

When we want to communicate precisely are we left with math? It is hard to argue that there is no connection there when logic in language and logic in math use very similar equations and definitions.

Don't panic! That's what my dad used to tell me about nearly everything. He was right. The more critical the task, the more important it is to be clear headed and clear in communication. Once you've mastered that, the art of language follows. No good language artist is so haphazardly.

How does one explain Shakespeare then? The ideas conveyed are certainly important ones, yet the method of communication is quite convoluted - yet all the more popular for being so. Translating Hamlet's famous soliloquiy down to "should I kill myself?" doesn't quite capture the feeling of it all. Sometimes a surfeit of 'gooey' words seems to improve the message.

[Michael]

The chief distinctions between atheism and agnosticism rests on the status of knowledge, or as some philosophers further points out, the moral consequences of belief with knowledge and belief without (e.g. Clifford's Ethics of Belief has a story of the ship sailing to the New World, and Huxley's Agnosticism) (The_Drunk_Guy: you can look em up easily yourself, I certainly am not just touting names and literatures here- I just don't want to change the subject all the time trying to explain everything). The central claim being- regardless of your level of sincerety in what you believe, some which may or may not be self-serving, belief without certainty in knowledge is always immoral, and therefore we cannot be either theists or atheists, as both of these makes a claim on not just one's belief, but a belief that necessarily rests on knowledge. Only with justified belief, or belief with full knowledge, can we make religious statements such as "there is a god", or "there is no god" that are moral, since our belief in god often entail exhortations or imperatives relating to other people. (And if one can always keep one's religious belief completely private, then the moral argument is irrelevant- except for when one is harmed by one's own false beliefs). ...
I can't accept this because atheism itself does not constitute a claim of knowledge. Atheism, in strict philosophical terms, is simply a lack of belief in theism (or God). A lack of belief does not constitute an actual claim of knowledge (other than knowledge of one's conscious self).

Theism on the other hand, as a statement of belief, certainly does entail a logical claim of knowledge ('God exists', or 'scripture/theology is truth').

As for agnosticism, I've always considered that term to be as confusing as the common misunderstandings about the word atheism, though rather less contentious.

In practical terms, I find 'agnosticism' is the label many 'atheists' retreat to when they are challenged by aggressive theists and lack the ability to stand the intellectual ground. (I'm not accusing you WFCY at all of this, just making a common observation here that this approach seems common amongst the less eritrude/serious types and thus VERY popular. ;) )

There is a related but independent second point here- for some people such as the empircists (like Hume, or Mill), or later the Modernists and Logical Positivists, justified belief is significant not based on moral grounds, but based on the principles in which statements' truth value can be derived. Both theism and atheism suffer the same problem in that statements such as "there is a god", or "there is no god" cannot be verified scientifically. They are in a sense, nonsense, this is another ground for someone to be agnostic.

I certainly won't disagree with Hume. ;)

And I certainly agree about what you say regarding justified belief.

I just get hung up on the idea that atheism represents a claim of knowledge (other than the self knowledge of a lack of presence of belief).

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

If this definition of atheism is to stand uncontested, that means that the number of intelligent atheists is zero. End of discussion.

In my opinion, denial of the existence of God is as absurd as the assertion that God does exist. Without proof either way, no claim of knowledge is possible and it is all just conjecture.

I lack all interest in the question of God and theology. God might exist for all I know, but I still have no reason to believe in the whole concept so I don't. I don't believe in God/god/gods/theology/afterlife/etc at all. None of it, nothing. I lack any belief at all in this respect.

I think, therefore I am, and one day I will die. The End. That's all I can claim to know. There may be more to it than that, but I have no reason or knowledge to believe/justify that.

(My philosophical position here is epistemologically consistent with Hume)

So an atheist is either- someone who claims to know there is no god, or who does not know, but nevertheless believes the non-existence of a god. An agnostic lacks such belief. This is consistent with the definition provided in my previous post.

As noted above, I just can't accept this definition of atheism. That (Sanford) definition of atheism makes atheism as absurd as the God-claims of the theists.

Atheism is a rejection of God-belief. That can not be considered the same as a positive assertion that 'God does not exist'. That's the contemporary popular definition of the term that intelligent atheists reject by definition because it constitutes the same principle of faith that is rejected in the first place. This Sanford definition of atheism makes atheism into a religion and that's absurd.

The above does not seem to be a wholly satisfying or clear enough distinction, but it does make justified beleif, or belief with knowledge, a key criteria that sets agnostics apart from atheists.
I agree with the significance of justified belief, but I don't see how that applies to the issue of atheism since there is only a lack of belief.

Again, the demonstrations by the author above seems unsatisfactory- The only reason I could attribute to this is precisely because natural language is not scientific and not precise enough. A statement such as "There is a god" or a statement such as "There is no god" is a matter of probability when justified belief, aka, knowledge, is involved in the evaluation of such statements- As the author suggests, we ought to apply methods of verification, external to the natural languages we speak, which contrary to natural languages, are scientific in nature, in order to determine the meaning or truths of those statements. There are further problems in applying scientific methods to prove the non-existence of things, which is why statements of existence is either positively proved, or matters of probabily when positive proof is absent.

The external methods of verification mentioned by the author and me, such as Bayesian/Confirmation theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/), or the Demarcation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem) mostly attributed to Positivists such as Ayer, will be extensively discussed in another thread which I intend to follow up in the near future.
I just can't get past the big strawman of this 'religious' definition of atheism making knowledge claims that seems necessary to this definitional distinction for agnosticism.

If agnosticism is valid, it needs to stand on its own feet with a definition that doesn't include a direct reference to atheism. Atheism takes its name from theism for good reason. Agnosticism is derived from a different traditional line of thinking that goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, not a reaction against monotheism.

As we can see, the discussion of Atheism vs Agnosticism touches upon several philosophical issues. On the one hand, it deals with morality, which is phasing out in philosophical discussions of the modern and postmodern era. On the other hand, it deals with philosophy of language, the way in which we evaluate truth or falsity of statements in natural language, statements which are intrisically very imprecise, ambiguous and by no means suitable for communicating scientific knowledge.
And at the core of it, a poor and wildly abused and misunderstood word! :lol:

I think we really need to agree on a functional definition of atheism - one that doesn't seek to turn atheism into a reverse form of theism, otherwise it will be a religiously biased definition and that's non-functional for philosophic purposes.

I also think we need an "Atheism & Agnosticism" thread to discuss this as we are probably moving way beyond the issues of "literalism".

There are however, pragmatic and practical grounds for making a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which will be continued in my next post.
I hope you won't base it upon this [flawed] Sanford definition. ;)

[WFCY]

If this definition of atheism is to stand uncontested, that means that the number of intelligent atheists is zero. End of discussion.

In my opinion, denial of the existence of God is as absurd as the assertion that God does exist. Without proof either way, no claim of knowledge is possible and it is all just conjecture.

I lack all interest in the question of God and theology. God might exist for all I know, but I still have no reason to believe in the whole concept so I don't. I don't believe in God/god/gods/theology/afterlife/etc at all. None of it, nothing. I lack any belief at all in this respect.

I think, therefore I am, and one day I will die. The End. That's all I can claim to know. There may be more to it than that, but I have no reason or knowledge to believe/justify that.


The first paragraph of the above quote makes your point succinctly and very potently, and pretty much sums up your whole criticism of one of my posts. So forgive me for not quoting in full, but I will address this.

First of all, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) (not "Sanford"), is a very reliable source of terms used in philosophy. The other authority I would fall back on is the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521637228), which is only available in print, and this was why I did not resort to it.

But since I have a copy, I will type the entry out for you manually, and if you have a copy too, go check it (in case of minor differences- I am using the Second Edition):


(p.59) Atheism: The view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense, denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-cosciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.


(theoretical vs practical is just the strong vs weak, explicit vs implict contrast I mentioned already)

I don't need to tell you, perfectly consistent with what I said about Atheism. These two sources are about as authoritative as it gets in the field of philosophy before one is prompted to look into the individual literatures and beyond standardized sources. Wiki btw, although not as respected by philosophers, nevertheless echos these two, and echos my definition (wiki link already in my prior post).

So, enough with "appeal to authority" you say. What do I have to say about:


If this definition of atheism is to stand uncontested, that means that the number of intelligent atheists is zero. End of discussion.


Actually, you are right, end of discussion.

It is correct that if we go by the strict definition- No atheist is holding his belief based on certain knowledge (certain, as opposed to probable). But if the existence of god is a matter of probability, as I mentioned before, and so did the author of the Stanford encyclopedia- then when the probability of his existence is low, we might as well regard ourselves as atheists instead of an agnostic. In fact, this was the argument given by Richard Dawkins.

Of course, human beings' self identification is not purely based on reason. There is still a leap to make from 0.001% of god existing to asserting 0% of god existing. Then there would of course be some emotional, or anti-theistic grounds behind making such leaps (refer to what I said about antitheism). These things are not mutually exclusive, which is why words are not science.

There are a few other ways to get around but I will just talk in the confines of the concepts that I have set up so far until it becomes necessary to bring in new concepts.

Now, why would we want to use the narrower sense of the word "atheism" ever? A meaning which implies ignorance, or assertion beyond one's knowledge, you may ask.

Because in a discussion about "atheism vs agnosticism", this distinction becomes important. Without agnosticisim, atheism can mean a lot of things- I deny the existence of god, or I simply lack belief in god, etc. But when it's "atheism vs agnosticism", agnosticism already took the "I lack belief in god" part. How else would you be able to distinguish the two? So you may as well attribute the unfortunate attachment of ignorance (saying "there is no god" while not knowing for certain) onto atheism to the development of philisophy of religion. I mean, agnosticism is only a very recent term compared to atheism. Atheism used to subsume agnosticism until agnosticism came along as a philosophical term. Now that atheism needs to distinguish itself, in a conversation when agnosticism is involved. And unfortunately, atheism has got the rotten left-overs. Agnosticism took away the good stuff.

Margot wants to go strictly by the morphlogical roots of words. It does not work after a while, when the concepts denoted by these words have been discussed and developed by philosophers.

[Michael]

Moderator's Note: It does appear that this thread has been thread-jacked by a discussion about the 'proper' definition of atheism. Since it is relevant to the issue in the OP, and because I really don't want to do thread-surgery to move this specific discussion between WFCY and myself off to another properly labeled thread, I'm just going to continue this discussion here. :)

The first paragraph of the above quote makes your point succinctly and very potently, and pretty much sums up your whole criticism of one of my posts. So forgive me for not quoting in full, but I will address this.

First of all, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) (not "Sanford"), is a very reliable source of terms used in philosophy. The other authority I would fall back on is the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521637228), which is only available in print, and this was why I did not resort to it.
My apologies for the typo on Stanford. I'm quite familiar with them and have read dozens of articles from it - it is by far the best source available on the net. This is the first time I've seen anything there I consider objectionable or questionable.

Re-stating your quotation (that you kindly transcribed) from above for reference:
(p.59) Atheism: The view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense, denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-cosciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.
1st bold: Socrates was accused of lacking belief in the official Athenian gods. Socrates was not accused of denying their existence.

2nd bold: An atheist does not (or can not) believe that a supreme being exists (theoretically or otherwise). That's a logical contradiction. An atheist only has to acknowledge that it is possible that one might exist as one's own knowledge of the issue is limited by definition.

It would appear that there is a major distinction within atheism, but that seems to be between a 'moderate' type that claims only a lack of belief in God, and an 'extreme' type that will assert the claim that God does not exist. There is a substantial epistemological difference between these two points (as we have already noted and agreed upon).

(theoretical vs practical is just the strong vs weak, explicit vs implict contrast I mentioned already)
As I've consistently stated, I just can't accept that the statement of atheism (stating a lack of belief in theism) must logically entail the positive assertion that 'God does not exist'. That just seems to add extra baggage to the word (and an impossibly unjustifiable claim at that!).

I agree that there are two varieties of atheists, but there shouldn't be two varieties of atheism. Some atheists certainly do make the claim that 'God does not exist', but that is ill-educated nonsense and shouldn't be considered philosophical. If anything, that is a religious-type claim.

I don't need to tell you, perfectly consistent with what I said about Atheism. These two sources are about as authoritative as it gets in the field of philosophy before one is prompted to look into the individual literatures and beyond standardized sources. Wiki btw, although not as respected by philosophers, nevertheless echos these two, and echos my definition (wiki link already in my prior post).
I certainly am aware that this 'Stanford' definition is widely disseminated and widely supported, and for all intents and purposes, definitive in contemporary society.

But as one who has always claimed to profess a complete lack of any faith in any theism of any kind, I just can't accept it. That (Stanford) definition seems like it was written by a Christian - or an anti-atheist at the very least. It is religiously biased.

If this definition of atheism is to stand uncontested, that means that the number of intelligent atheists is zero. End of discussion.

Actually, you are right, end of discussion.

It is correct that if we go by the strict definition- No atheist is holding his belief based on certain knowledge (certain, as opposed to probable). But if the existence of god is a matter of probability, as I mentioned before, and so did the author of the Stanford encyclopedia- then when the probability of his existence is low, we might as well regard ourselves as atheists instead of an agnostic. In fact, this was the argument given by Richard Dawkins.

Of course, human beings' self identification is not purely based on reason. There is still a leap to make from 0.001% of god existing to asserting 0% of god existing. Then there would of course be some emotional, or anti-theistic grounds behind making such leaps (refer to what I said about antitheism). These things are not mutually exclusive, which is why words are not science.

There are a few other ways to get around but I will just talk in the confines of the concepts that I have set up so far until it becomes necessary to bring in new concepts.
But I'm not playing game theory here to optimize or hedge my position with respect to any theoretically potential existence of God (or afterlife). That doesn't interest me because I lack belief (and thus lack interest).

Lack of belief in God is just that. God might exist, but that's none of my business and I don't really care if God actually exists or not, because it doesn't matter to me, since I don't believe it. (Unless some physical evidence becomes available, then I'm interested!)

As for the probability of God's existence, I consider that moot. I possess the same lack of belief in the 1% probability case as I do in the 99% probability case. :shrug:

Agnosticism seems to be a hedge statement, trying to cover all one's bases and claiming optimal superiority to all of them. Indeed, from the perspective of 'covering all of one's bases', this does appear to be the optimal approach.

But I think atheism ought to represent just the plain and simple lack of belief statement that the word is identified by (a-theism).

Now, why would we want to use the narrower sense of the word "atheism" ever? A meaning which implies ignorance, or assertion beyond one's knowledge, you may ask.

Because in a discussion about "atheism vs agnosticism", this distinction becomes important. Without agnosticisim, atheism can mean a lot of things- I deny the existence of god, or I simply lack belief in god, etc. But when it's "atheism vs agnosticism", agnosticism already took the "I lack belief in god" part. How else would you be able to distinguish the two? So you may as well attribute the unfortunate attachment of ignorance (saying "there is no god" while not knowing for certain) onto atheism to the development of philisophy of religion. I mean, agnosticism is only a very recent term compared to atheism. Atheism used to subsume agnosticism until agnosticism came along as a philosophical term. Now that atheism needs to distinguish itself, in a conversation when agnosticism is involved. And unfortunately, atheism has got the rotten left-overs. Agnosticism took away the good stuff.
How do you reconcile the two bolded statements?

Margot wants to go strictly by the morphlogical roots of words. It does not work after a while, when the concepts denoted by these words have been discussed and developed by philosophers.
I agree that the morphological roots of words cannot be always taken absolutely definitive.

However, I do believe that the one place that the morphological roots of words is most relevant and authorative is in respect of philosophy. Popularity ought not to be used to determine philosophic definitions.

[Margot]

I just found this little gem hiding on the first page of the thread. It explains a lot. :)

While I certainly will assert that words (like people) are always variable, I most certainly wouldn't dream of pretending that this is efficient or effective for anything except variety itself. I think it is just in the nature of these things themselves (people and words) that they are variable.

Now if you are asserting that words ought not to be variable, that's another issue entirely, but on the question of whether words are, or are not, actually variable, I don't think there is any doubt that they in fact are quite variable, malleable, flexible and prone to morph-like behaviors. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is yet another issue as well.

(Indeed, to judge whether any given thing is a "good or bad thing" requires that we initially define the moral compass or measuring scale to be used and that, more often than not, is even more challenging than the initial question itself! :lol: )

As for scientific precision, I think that's impossible to achieve using written words alone. Words, by definition, are symbols that represent other things. You have used the example of "moose", but that is only the word-symbol that represents a specific type of large mammal - the word itself is not an actual moose. Likewise with "atheism", that is only a word-symbol that represents an idea or social construct - it is not a thing in itself (other than as a word-symbol).

And symbols, by definition, will often admit of alternative interpretations. How can one be certain that one is reading the 'correct' interpretation of any given symbol? (since one sees/hears only the 'word-symbol' or 'word-sound') that represents a moose, not a moose itself).

And if words really do have some intrinsic or fundamental meaning specific to each word, how come we have such oddities as "leading" being the word used in the art of typography to precisely define the size of the space between two lines of type? Please keep in mind of course that the word (originally) specifically referred to the layers of actual strips of lead being used for the spacing in the ancient art of manual printing (Gutenburg style).

That is to say, if the meaning of a word is intrinsic to itself, the meaning of "leading" ought to pertain to the use of lead, not the digital use of spacing on a webpage design (for example).

I certainly don't have a problem with words behaving oddly or having anachronistic origins. Indeed, I think that is what gives them character. :)

Btw, the term "boy" used to mean something entirely different than what we use that word for nowadays - a male child. That's a relatively modern application of that particular word (of no known origin!). Same is true of "girl".

Generally speaking, I find the history of the changing meanings of words over time to be very interesting. If words must be read with scientific precision, then I'm afraid that we will need a law against the use of the English language itself. As I've argued in other threads previously, the English language originates as a bastard language - which won out over time against Latin and French, which are both better suited for scientific precision. ;)

Ah. I see our problem!

I think the problem here is the distinct poststructuralist overtone. Derrida would be very proud. Derrida, for those of us who haven't taken Literary Theory (>.<) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida)

What I'm asking is for people to quit looking at words in the "endless chain of signifiers,"--outside the realm of Différance.

If we say that words are inherently mutable, then it's a moot point. And by "it," I mean all of communication. If language is inherently mutable, then where do we draw the line? What stops us from all arbitrarily redefining words? I've just decided that "Michael" now means "people from Canada." Later I may decide it also means, "all smart people on the internet," and, after that I could again change it to mean "moose." Don't forget, however, that "Michael" has also always meant "Margot's first boyfriend, and all the baggage that goes along with that (including breaking-and-entering, digging cow-traps, climbing fences, discussing white phosphorous, being used, being crushed, being angry, etc.)"

Does "Michael" have a different meaning for you? If so, then we might as well just make sounds at each other and hope for the best, because all communication is lost at that point. Trying to regulate the amount of arbitrary re-defining that goes on in a language is just more arbitrariness on top of everything that is already arbitrary.

The system that you advocate puts a greater value on the speaker-signifier relationship than the relationship between the signifier-signified. However, as speakers, as the creators, we have created that signifier-signified relationship. We created it so that we could come to an agreement. If, however, we place a greater relationship on the speaker-signifier relationship, it can easily become speaker-signifier-signifier-signifier-signifier relationship--a relationship inherently more complicated than the less arbitrary signifier-signified relationship.

As for "leading:"

1. AWESOME. I didn't know that, and that's EXACTLY why I made this thread. (when I go to my text document and select "double-space," is that the poor-man's version of leading, right? God! I LOVE learning new words!)

2. "Leading" reminds me of the previously mentioned example of "humors." Again I ask, what is the strength or value in redefining a pre-existing word? Variety has been lost, and a chance at variety has been lost.

Finally, I loved this:

And symbols, by definition, will often admit of alternative interpretations. How can one be certain that one is reading the 'correct' interpretation of any given symbol? (since one sees/hears only the 'word-symbol' or 'word-sound') that represents a moose, not a moose itself).

Have you read Jean Baudrillard's The Spirit of Terrorism? In it, Baudrillard addresses the power of symbols and, more importantly, the power in destroying symbols. The essay is about September 11th, but more importantly, the modern terrorist. “Never attack the system in terms of relations of force,” is Baudrillard’s understanding of the modern terroristic mind, instead “shift the struggle into the symbolic sphere” (17).

I agree with Baudrillard: symbols are not only fragile, they're prone. They're susceptible to attack. The best way to shore up our communication--our symbols--against attack is to treat them as a science. Treat them as something immutable. If we treat our words as mutable symbols, it is, at least in my opinion, an act of terrorism against communication in general.

[Margot]

No, it doesn't prove coherence. But it will eventually get an entry in the dictionary regardless. :D

I BEG TO REFUDIATE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904916.html)!

[Margot]

Also, not to beat the dead horse or anything, but this thread it still NOT ABOUT RELIGION. It has been a thread about words. Not about words-and-religion, and not about religion. It has NOTHING to do with religion at all. I'm sorry it devolved like it did.

[Mind's Eye]

Also, not to beat the dead horse or anything, but this thread it still NOT ABOUT RELIGION. It has been a thread about words. Not about words-and-religion, and not about religion. It has NOTHING to do with religion at all. I'm sorry it devolved like it did.

Which is why I departed.

[WFCY]

You guys didn't read what I wrote.

It's not only about religion. The last 2 post in the 4-series makes the point exactly as to why language is not science, using those religious terms and concepts as examples.

[Margot]

Oddly enough, one of my Youtube subscriptions posted this earlier today: http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrothers?blend=2&ob=4

Huh. He can make the point without bringing up religion at all!

[WFCY]

1st bold: Socrates was accused of lacking belief in the official Athenian gods. Socrates was not accused of denying their existence.

2nd bold: An atheist does not (or can not) believe that a supreme being exists (theoretically or otherwise). That's a logical contradiction. An atheist only has to acknowledge that it is possible that one might exist as one's own knowledge of the issue is limited by definition.

1. The Cambridge encyclopedia is accurate, Socrates is an atheist in the boarder sense in which it was defined, as quoted- "In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods."

Socrates was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods. I can't read Greek so I can only go with the translations. However, the word used, ἄθεος, just means "without gods", simply has a wide variety of interpretations, encompassing not believing and denying the existence of god, and gods (and the Greek gods are very different from the Christian god), or in the case of Socrates- believe in some gods but not the official gods (which if one wants to be accurate using modern terms, he would be accused of being a pagan instead. But in ancient Greece, there was no paganism, as it was only available in ancient Rome. Therefore he was accused of "atheism". So meaning changes over time, which I will discuss in the latter part of this post).

2. Yes, logical contraditction. Who says people don't have logically contradicting beliefs? Have you ever made a statement that asserted about the non-existence of something, e.g. Goblins, unicorns, the round square, the quotient of divide by zero? Okay, if you have, then applying the same standards, you too have committed logical contradiction. People do this all the time, and it is not the problem of definitions that people contradict themselves.



But as one who has always claimed to profess a complete lack of any faith in any theism of any kind, I just can't accept it. That (Stanford) definition seems like it was written by a Christian - or an anti-atheist at the very least. It is religiously biased.

I am afraid you have to take your objections up to the author and the editor of the respective sources. For me, I think they are fairly good and do not contradict the literatures on the subject which I have read and studied during my career as a philosophy student.


But I'm not playing game theory here to optimize or hedge my position with respect to any theoretically potential existence of God (or afterlife). That doesn't interest me because I lack belief (and thus lack interest).

There is no game theory involved. I am just demonstrating how people make assertions with small leaps of faiths (1%-0.001% of God existing might as well be no existence) instead of large ones (Christians, seeing that 1%-0.001% chance of god existing and asserts "there is a god!"). Questions may arise as to where I got those numbers from. Well, I am a scientist and there is no available method to derive or prove god's existence and I don't know any serious scientists who have said otherwise. If god is something which exists like beings exist, or matters exist, then there are no evidence of his existence by any scientific standards. That's all I can say about that.


Lack of belief in God is just that. God might exist, but that's none of my business and I don't really care if God actually exists or not, because it doesn't matter to me, since I don't believe it. (Unless some physical evidence becomes available, then I'm interested!)

I am just as indifferent about whether god exists or not as you. And believe me all the atheists I have known (either personally or from reading their articles or books), including the ones who deny his existence, are just as apathetic as us. Yet how we feel about it has little to do with how we draw the definitions of the terms we use to communicate.


How do you reconcile the two bolded statements?

You misunderstood. The word "already" is not already on a historical timeline, but rather, already in an instantaneous discourse like the one taking place between you and I right now. I meant to say that atheism as a philosophical subject came historically much earlier than agnosticism as a philosophical subject (in constrast with atheism). So prior to agnosticism, atheism used to subsume both the notion of not having a belief, and denying the existence. As soon as agnosticism came along, agnosticism took claim of the former notion, thus leaving atheism with only the latter when both are discussed in the same context.

In a conversation about agnosticism vs atheism, this distinction always comes to the fore, for good reasons, if atheism is to subsume agnosticism, then the discussion would be rather confusing, since everytime someone utters "atheism" he would be forced to clarify if he meant "not having belief" or "denying existence", or both, as to not get tangled up with agnosticism.

That is precisely, one of the reasons why language is not science, and the words we use can denote more, or less things, depending on the contexts in which it is uttered in.


However, I do believe that the one place that the morphological roots of words is most relevant and authorative is in respect of philosophy. Popularity ought not to be used to determine philosophic definitions.

If popularity (by which I assume you mean, peer reviewed, scholistically accepted or scientifically established, which is the standard I have rigorously imposed upon my definitions thus far) ought not to be used to determine philosophical definitions of the most rudimentary concepts in philosophy, then every college kid can at a moment's whim, conjure up her own definition of everything other people have worked on and discussed about, for decades if not centries. She can go and reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately, nobody in Ford or Mercedez will be bothered to look at that wheel, not to mention buying it, neither will any serious linguist or philosopher care much if any, about those subjective, confusing, and inaccurate definitions based on purely primitive morphological observations.

[Non Sequitur]

1. The Cambridge encyclopedia is accurate, Socrates is an atheist in the boarder sense in which it was defined, as quoted- "In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods."

Socrates was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods. I can't read Greek so I can only go with the translations. However, the word used, ἄθεος, just means "without gods", simply has a wide variety of interpretations, encompassing not believing and denying the existence of god, and gods (and the Greek gods are very different from the Christian god), or in the case of Socrates- believe in some gods but not the official gods (which if one wants to be accurate using modern terms, he would be accused of being a pagan instead. But in ancient Greece, there was no paganism, as it was only available in ancient Rome. Therefore he was accused of "atheism". So meaning changes over time, which I will discuss in the latter part of this post).



I don't know if this helps the argument, but I'm in the middle of my summer biblical greek intensive. Now Biblical greek is a little later in time (and thus the meanings are different), but after looking up the word, ἄθεος can mean a lot depending on context. However, there was this line in my dictionary: "in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state"

[Michael]

1. The Cambridge encyclopedia is accurate, Socrates is an atheist in the boarder sense in which it was defined, as quoted- "In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods."

Socrates was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods. I can't read Greek so I can only go with the translations. However, the word used, ἄθεος, just means "without gods", simply has a wide variety of interpretations, encompassing not believing and denying the existence of god, and gods (and the Greek gods are very different from the Christian god), or in the case of Socrates- believe in some gods but not the official gods (which if one wants to be accurate using modern terms, he would be accused of being a pagan instead. But in ancient Greece, there was no paganism, as it was only available in ancient Rome. Therefore he was accused of "atheism". So meaning changes over time, which I will discuss in the latter part of this post).
I don't see how this supports your argument at all - rather it supports mine.

Socrates was accused of 'not believing in the gods' - that is atheism plain and simple.

Socrates was not accused of 'denying the possible existence of the gods' - that's an unjustified extrapolation that is not part of atheism.

2. Yes, logical contraditction. Who says people don't have logically contradicting beliefs? Have you ever made a statement that asserted about the non-existence of something, e.g. Goblins, unicorns, the round square, the quotient of divide by zero? Okay, if you have, then applying the same standards, you too have committed logical contradiction. People do this all the time, and it is not the problem of definitions that people contradict themselves.
I agree that logical contradictions are remarkably common things with human beings.

However, that does not (and can not) justify forcing a logical contradition upon the definition of atheism and applying it as a rule.

Rules and/or definitions ought not to be logically contradictory. Personal opinions however can be.

I am afraid you have to take your objections up to the author and the editor of the respective sources. For me, I think they are fairly good and do not contradict the literatures on the subject which I have read and studied during my career as a philosophy student.

I thought you wanted to discuss the issue? :ummm:

Are we all to just read Stanford for the answer to everything and then just shut up? I don't buy that.

There is no game theory involved. I am just demonstrating how people make assertions with small leaps of faiths (1%-0.001% of God existing might as well be no existence) instead of large ones (Christians, seeing that 1%-0.001% chance of god existing and asserts "there is a god!"). Questions may arise as to where I got those numbers from. Well, I am a scientist and there is no available method to derive or prove god's existence and I don't know any serious scientists who have said otherwise. If god is something which exists like beings exist, or matters exist, then there are no evidence of his existence by any scientific standards. That's all I can say about that.
I was referring here to the common assertion that 'agnosticism is the best' position - based on 'game theory' or probability and/or optimization type arguments.

I'm not interested in which is the 'best' position - I'm not trying to win anything here. I'm just trying to use the right word to correctly describe my own belief position on the topic - and I'm objecting to all the extra baggage that people want to 'force' upon my stated position - without any justification at all.

I am just as indifferent about whether god exists or not as you. And believe me all the atheists I have known (either personally or from reading their articles or books), including the ones who deny his existence, are just as apathetic as us. Yet how we feel about it has little to do with how we draw the definitions of the terms we use to communicate.

Yes.

So how can you justify adding in this extra bit about 'denying' the existence of gods (i.e. an absurd 'claim of knowledge') onto the basic definition of atheism being a lack of belief?

The term atheism makes sense only as a descriptive label to represent a lack of belief in theism. As soon as one adds on the requirement that this means one is making a 'claim of knowledge' about god's non-existence, the term 'atheism' becomes essentially nonsense.

You misunderstood. The word "already" is not already on a historical timeline, but rather, already in an instantaneous discourse like the one taking place between you and I right now. I meant to say that atheism as a philosophical subject came historically much earlier than agnosticism as a philosophical subject (in constrast with atheism). So prior to agnosticism, atheism used to subsume both the notion of not having a belief, and denying the existence. As soon as agnosticism came along, agnosticism took claim of the former notion, thus leaving atheism with only the latter when both are discussed in the same context.

In a conversation about agnosticism vs atheism, this distinction always comes to the fore, for good reasons, if atheism is to subsume agnosticism, then the discussion would be rather confusing, since everytime someone utters "atheism" he would be forced to clarify if he meant "not having belief" or "denying existence", or both, as to not get tangled up with agnosticism.

I don't believe that the original term of atheism ever included any claim of knowledge (asserting non-existence). That appears to be a modern innovation (driven by general religious bias).

That is precisely, one of the reasons why language is not science, and the words we use can denote more, or less things, depending on the contexts in which it is uttered in.

Of this we are in complete agreement. :)

If popularity (by which I assume you mean, peer reviewed, scholistically accepted or scientifically established, which is the standard I have rigorously imposed upon my definitions thus far) ought not to be used to determine philosophical definitions of the most rudimentary concepts in philosophy, then every college kid can at a moment's whim, conjure up her own definition of everything other people have worked on and discussed about, for decades if not centries. She can go and reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately, nobody in Ford or Mercedez will be bothered to look at that wheel, not to mention buying it, neither will any serious linguist or philosopher care much if any, about those subjective, confusing, and inaccurate definitions based on purely primitive morphological observations.
By 'popularity' I was referring to the historical, political and religious intolerance of atheism that defines the context of these definitions.

As far as I'm aware, the 'purely primative morphological' meanings of words tend to be the ones used in philosophy. I may be incorrect on this as I've never studied linguistics, but that's my impression.

[Margot]

Of this we are in complete agreement. :)



You just nullified everything else in your post.

YOU just "[justified] adding in this extra bit about 'denying' the existence of gods."

If you think that language cannot be scientific because of the human contextual element, that's fine. But that also means that everything else you said in that post is totally useless.

If language is not scientific, you cannot possibly make the claim that anything is "plain and simple."

[WFCY]

Michael, I am not sure what your objections are. "Atheism", when discussed in the context of Agnosticism vs Atheism, has always been a logical contradiciton. On its own, it would have been fine, as you said, which I had no problems with. But for the reasons I already stated, in fact if you take into account the points re: knowledge and ethics raised by the Agnostics- pure Atheists have been standing on thin ice for more than 100 years. All of these are well documented and supported by the sources I used, btw. And, as I said, atheists make tiny little leaps of faith, as opposed to big ones, like theists.

If your objection is about the use of word only, then re my comments on context. Words are not science. Far from it. Variation of interpretation in words are about as elastic as the difference between a newspaper headline "more than a handful died in WTO on 911" VS. "almost 3,000 died in WTO on 911". Both claims are perfectly consistent with one another, there are no logical contradictions with one another- yet they mean very different things. Almost all of the American population will be up in arms about the former, but donate money for the latter! So there are more meanings beyond the pure logical one. In this case, "atheism" has the extra meaning beyond pure logical interpretation, namely the little leaps of faith, and its rich historical heritage, both of which I have repeatedly mentioned.

Neither you nor Margot have so far raised a point against this- For pseudo science, different contexts you get complete different things. Why are words not science? Cause pure science happens to not depend on contexts. Not the case when talking about say, set theories, first order predicate logic, and in their summation, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and so on. Not sure what "science" Margot is referring to, maybe political science or neoclassical economics where actual scientists shun. No idea. But I suppose it is good enough "science" for English majors when variables vary customarily and on a moment's whim. Just because there are some traces of cause-effect relationship, like if you see cats dragging their feet then usually it's going rain, that kinda "science".

It's like if I say "I run..." without finishing the sentence, Margot would conclude it "plain and simple" as the language itself indicates my legs are in motion, pacing up and and down the path... then I'd say "a company", as in "I run a company". Well too bad. Not even the most simplistic and frequently used verbs work like "science" in day to day discourse. Unless you have a poetic definition for "science". I don't.

[Margot]

It's like if I say "I run..." without finishing the sentence, Margot would conclude it "plain and simple" as the language itself indicates my legs are in motion, pacing up and and down the path... then I'd say "a company", as in "I run a company". Well too bad. Not even the most simplistic and frequently used verbs work like "science" in day to day discourse. Unless you have a poetic definition for "science". I don't.


But would you expect me to think you run a company from "I run...?"

You're right, too bad. Too bad for you.

I have a way for you to think of it--I know you won't like it, but well, "too bad," as you say.

Think of your linguistic brain as an Erlenmeyer flask (they're the ones that taper in). You can put in all sorts of chemicals, and they mix all different ways. By "chemicals" I mean words. You're making sentences. Outside of your flask your sodium, hydrogen, cobalt, zinc are all just elements: "I" "company "run" "a." You have to mix them together in order for me to understand what you're trying to make. Sure, it's caustic, but now I get it.

[WFCY]

doesn't work that way.

"I saw an astronaut with a telescope"

did I see him with my telescope, or did I see him carrying one?

No answer to that, because words don't react and produce a definitive result like chemicals do. Your metaphor fails, too bad.

There are plenty of such examples in every language.

But would you expect me to think you run a company from "I run...?"

You missed the point. I can infinitely add words behind "I run" and come up with infinitely many interpretations for the meaning of "run".


have a way for you to think of it--I know you won't like it, but well, "too bad," as you say.

You seem to like saying that a lot-- "I know you won't like it".

What does whether I like it or not have anything to do with anything? If it bears any impact on what I am saying, then it's definitely not "science". How you seem to consider this integral part of someone's argument just goes to show what kind of "scientific" mind you've got.

[Margot]

doesn't work that way.

"I saw an astronaut with a telescope"

did I see him with my telescope, or did I see him carrying one?

No answer to that, because words don't react and produce a definitive result like chemicals do. Your metaphor fails, too bad.

There are plenty of such examples in every language.

Not my problem. It is not my burden to decipher what you mean; it is your burden to speak clearly.

[WFCY]

Not my problem. It is not my burden to decipher what you mean; it is your burden to speak clearly.

lol.

syntactic ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of every natural language.

but run forrest, run.

[Margot]

lol.

syntactic ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of every natural language.

but run forrest, run.

So is grammar, but apparently that can be thrown by the wayside, too.

If you wanted me to understand that you saw your astronaut lugging a telescope across a parking lot, wouldn't you say so?

Or would you just choose to be ambiguous and hope for the best?

Your example reminds me very much of my sixth grade science fair project. I'd put it off, and put it off, and the day before the science fair I did the classic "Which Laundry Detergent Works Best" project. I threw it together to get the grade, not to say or conclude anything of great importance.

[WFCY]

Syntactic ambiguity is a subject of study in both linguistics and computational linguistics. Although the use of language is not science, the study of language as a genetic manifestation, and as an artifact/logical construct is science. Discarding phenomena inherent in natural languages as completely user defined and customary- It's like saying if solar eclipse has a cause, then the sun will show us what that cause is. Or if there are special reasons why bats don't use their eyes when they fly, they will "say so". Or if a patient suffers from some stomach disease, he will be non-ambiguous and tell you what exactly he has and what he needs. Science solves itself, experiments and analyses are unnecessary, according to you.

Even if for a moment, we assume you are correct, that linguistic phenomena are user defined, you just proved your own earlier theise wrong, because scientific phenomena are not user defined, so language cannot be science. You are contradicting yourself to no end.

If sixth grade science project is what motivates your idea what science is really about, I'm sorry to say but you are on the wrong track.

[Margot]

Syntactic ambiguity is a subject of study in both linguistics and computational linguistics. Although the use of language is not science, the study of language as a genetic manifestation, and as an artifact/logical construct is science. Discarding phenomena inherent in natural languages as completely user defined and customary- It's like saying if solar eclipse has a cause, then the sun will show us what that cause is. Or if there are special reasons why bats don't use their eyes when they fly, they will "say so". Or if a patient suffers from some stomach disease, he will be non-ambiguous and tell you what exactly he has and what he needs. Science solves itself, experiments and analyses are unnecessary, according to you.

Even if for a moment, we assume you are correct, that linguistic phenomena are user defined, you just proved your own earlier theise wrong, because scientific phenomena are not user defined, so language cannot be science. You are contradicting yourself to no end.

If sixth grade science project is what motivates your idea what science is really about, I'm sorry to say but you are on the wrong track.

If I wanted to bake an apple pie, I would first have to create the universe--also, I would need a good recipe. If I wanted to dip my hand into liquid Nitrogen, I would want to know how the Leidenfrost effect worked, and I would want to know sans ambiguity.

I ask again, if YOU were telling ME about the astronaut and the telescope, would you choose to be ambiguous? I ask because, unlike your sun, bat, and stomach analogy, you and I speak the same language, and know the rules of said language.

I cannot ask the sun to show me why a solar eclipse occurs, but I can study it, and work it out for myself. And then I can tell you exactly how the phenomena occurs. That would not be user defined.

I'm not asking you to direct, motivate, and manipulate your astronaut and telescope, I am asking you to tell me exactly what happened.

[WFCY]

I ask again, if YOU were telling ME about the astronaut and the telescope, would you choose to be ambiguous? I ask because, unlike your sun, bat, and stomach analogy, you and I speak the same language, and know the rules of said language.
...

I'm not asking you to direct, motivate, and manipulate your astronaut and telescope, I am asking you to tell me exactly what happened.

Part of doing science is asking the right questions, through certain observations about the phenomena that occur all around us.

When I said:

doesn't work that way.

"I saw an astronaut with a telescope"

did I see him with my telescope, or did I see him carrying one?

No answer to that, because words don't react and produce a definitive result like chemicals do. Your metaphor fails, too bad.


My point was, the use of language does not behave in ways that chemicals do, it is a direct response to your metaphor:

Think of your linguistic brain as an Erlenmeyer flask (they're the ones that taper in). You can put in all sorts of chemicals, and they mix all different ways. By "chemicals" I mean words. You're making sentences. Outside of your flask your sodium, hydrogen, cobalt, zinc are all just elements: "I" "company "run" "a." You have to mix them together in order for me to understand what you're trying to make. Sure, it's caustic, but now I get it.

What I just did was I "put in" some words, in a certain order, and demonstrated to you that the "mix" does not produce a "caustic", causal-effect, or any kind of definitive result, unlike chemical reactions. In fact, there is no "understanding" reached by that particular use of language- and there are infinitely many such examples, all accross different subdomains of lingustics from semantics to phonetics. Language use does not bear any resemblemce to any scientific method, mechanism, hypothesis, or theory in general. So your analogy fails. That was my point. Not asking you which one it is, because I know already that there is no answer.

The correct question to ask, for a linguist, or a scientist in general, is: "what kind of framework of analysis can we apply to natural language such that we can distinguish syntactic ambiguities of this type (and perhaps others for boarder empirical coverage) and explain under what circumstances we get one reading, and what other circumstances we get another; What does this framework look like?". The question: "it's up to you, what do you want?" is not a scientific question, nor about a scientific subject ("what I want"). But that appears to be what you're interested in, which proves that on this very subject we are discussion, you are not a scientist and are in no position to make claims about "language (use) is science". "I know you won't like it"-- but it simply isn't.

[Margot]

WFCY, I'm seriously asking, if you were telling me about an astronaut and a telescope, would you elect to be ambiguous?

Here, I'll even set it up (and please don't think I'm being sarcastic):

A young woman and a slightly older man meet on a street. He says to her: "I just saw..."

You fill in that blank. Tell me exactly what you would say in that scenario regarding the astronaut and the telescope.

My point about the science fair project was not for you to question my scientific knowledge--that would be very shallow on both our parts.

I'm saying that even ambiguity is science. It's bad science, and no one likes doing bad science! (Unless it's the premise to a cheesy porno, I guess...)

Language is a tool, and just like how we use tools in science, language (and words) are rigorous--subject to very specific criteria, rules, methods, procedures, etc. Like my science fair project, you are misusing your tools.

[WFCY]

The point of my example with telescopes, and in fact, with the verb "run"- are to demonstrate to you how language use are not matters of "science". They do not exhibit any features that scientists observe in matters of science.

The examples I rasied are ambiguous on purpose, why? because if they are not, then what would have been my point? Your question here is like asking me "why are the knives sharp if they want to cut me?". Well DUH, because I WANT to cut you. You are asking me to undermine my own examples so that they cease to prove what I want them to prove?

My point about the science fair project was not for you to question my scientific knowledge--that would be very shallow on both our parts.

Shallow on "both" our parts?

A more accurate term would be- your attempt at condescension backfired.

Language is a tool, and just like how we use tools in science, language (and words) are rigorous--subject to very specific criteria, rules, methods, procedures, etc. Like my science fair project, you are misusing your tools.

I recall you said "words are science, communication is science/ language use is science". Now it's a tool! So suddenly science=tools! You can ofc argue context changed and your definitions changed. I can only thank you for proving my point. Because in science, a joule is a newton times a meter, period; modus ponens is if P->Q and P, then Q, period. and so on. They don't change. These things are fundamental.

[Margot]

The point of my example with telescopes, and in fact, with the verb "run"- are to demonstrate to you how language use are not matters of "science". They do not exhibit any features that scientists observe in matters of science.

The examples I rasied are ambiguous on purpose, why? because if they are not, then what would have been my point? Your question here is like asking me "why are the knives sharp if they want to cut me?". Well DUH, because I WANT to cut you. You are asking me to undermine my own examples so that they cease to prove what I want them to prove?



I recall you said "language is science". Now it's a tool. So suddenly science=tools. You can ofc argue context changed and your definitions changed. I can only thank you for proving my point. Because in science, a joule is a newton times a meter, period; modus ponens is if P->Q and P, then Q, period. and so on. They don't change.


You think science isn't a tool? Oh, honey. It is THE tool!


Also, you still haven't answered my question.

I'm not trying to get you to undermine your point. It undermines itself--I'm just trying to get you to admit it.


Also, what the fuck does "ofc" mean?

[WFCY]

You think science isn't a tool? Oh, honey. It is THE tool!

changing the subject I see. Nice try when the boat is sinking.

So would u like to open a new thread about how science is a means to an end rather than an end in itself? I am sure you know the difference. The above quote is actually a very strong claim. Given that majority of the scientific academia are not directly applicable, I would like to see you argue for the above assertion with a little bit of substance.

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

I did.

Some girl once asked me why she isn't getting laid, I told her to lose weight and smile more. U know, most people would consider that an "answer" too. :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to get you to undermine your point. It undermines itself--I'm just trying to get you to admit it.

lol, why don't u write it out for me. don't think you can.

Also, what the fuck does "ofc" mean?

of course.

[The Drunk Guy]

Where's that damned 'yawn' smiley when I need it?

[WFCY]

Where's that damned 'yawn' smiley when I need it?

you would need a "this forum is on its way to become like USPO" smiley to go with that.

[The Drunk Guy]

you would need a "this forum is on its way to become like USPO" smiley to go with that.
It's not quite that bad yet. Flaming over Fox Propaganda tidbits is very hard to tolerate. Flaming over semantics is just boring.

By the way, I forgot to use my Bunsen burner on this post. Sorry, Margot.

[WFCY]

It's not quite that bad yet. Flaming over Fox Propaganda tidbits is very hard to tolerate. Flaming over semantics is just boring.

By the way, I forgot to use my Bunsen burner on this post. Sorry, Margot.

'yawn' smiley.

followed by "this forum is on its way to become like USPO" smiley.

very handy now that the semantics have been established.

[WFCY]

Now that I think of it, I should go play stracraft 2 instead. kinda like the outpost defenders on b.net. still trying to figure out how to deal with that ultralisk wave at 11:00 tho....

til Margot's groupies have something substantial to say, ciao.

[Margot]

I did.

Some girl once asked me why she isn't getting laid, I told her to lose weight and smile more. U know, most people would consider that an "answer" too. :rolleyes:




Please answer the direct question.

Don't dodge it. Fill in the blank: "I just saw a..."

[Margot]

of course.

OH! See, I thought it meant something like "OH! FUCK! CUNT!" or "Oh, fucking Christ!"

I had to go with context clues, you see, and I figured it was an admission of your mistakes. That's the sort of thing I say when I realize I'm wrong--but I guess arbitrary definitions only take us so far...

Golly, it sure does make more sense when you follow the rules of language and spelling! It's like... What's it like? It's like science!

;)

[WFCY]

Help yourself with urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ofc) or other web available sources sometimes.

[Mind's Eye]

Re : the Ehrlenmeyer flask analogy.

A comparison with itself to a human brain is rather interesting. And comparing a chemical reaction to the way in which we process language is likewise.

However, none of us are working with clean labware. Both the flask and the brain are contaminated.

No one conducting such experiments can hypothesize accurately on either outcome.

[Margot]

Re : the Ehrlenmeyer flask analogy.

A comparison with itself to a human brain is rather interesting. And comparing a chemical reaction to the way in which we process language is likewise.

However, none of us are working with clean labware. Both the flask and the brain are contaminated.

No one conducting such experiments can hypothesize accurately on either outcome.

So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?

[WFCY]

So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?

I dunno what you're trying to prove here in this thread Margot.

Just because something exhibit causal effect relation, does not mean it is science. Even scientology and dianetics exhibit certain causal effect relations- simply go take one of their "stress tests" off the streets by your nearest mall. They have all kinds of impressive theories about your life.

Just because speech, or language use, has a causal effect relation with the interlocutors' epistemic status, does not make it science. The criterion for science are set far higher as it is nowadays, but somehow yours remain in the bronze age. The claim just doesn't hold water.

[Margot]

I dunno what you're trying to prove here in this thread Margot.

Just because something exhibit causal effect relation, does not mean it is science. Even scientology and dianetics exhibit certain causal effect relations- simply go take one of their "stress tests" off the streets by your nearest mall. They have all kinds of impressive theories about your life.

Just because speech, or language use, has a causal effect relation with the interlocutors' epistemic status, does not make it science. The criterion for science are set far higher as it is nowadays, but somehow yours remain in the bronze age. The claim just doesn't hold water.

wakka curvy necrophilia.. .rUnning running Runnin!!!!g liceeggs ofc frisky

I beg to differ. If you think that my science takes you back to the bronze age, your view of language takes you back into the trees (flinging poo, is, of course, still your prerogative).

Also, seems you still haven't answered my question. :shrug:

[Mind's Eye]

Re : the Ehrlenmeyer flask analogy.

A comparison with itself to a human brain is rather interesting. And comparing a chemical reaction to the way in which we process language is likewise.

However, none of us are working with clean labware. Both the flask and the brain are contaminated.

No one conducting such experiments can hypothesize accurately on either outcome.

So when you say something you don't expect a reaction? I mean, when I say "oh, I'm doing well, you?" I don't expect the response to be "JESUS FUCK! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

Please, what makes you think our lab equipment isn't clean? More importantly, if you think it is unclean, why aren't you striving to make it as clean as you can get it?

Of course I expect a reaction !
What that reaction is, however, remains beyond my control.

Our labware is contaminated simply by our having individual & unique experiences which shaped us into who we are. That cannot be undone.

Those experiences shape how we interpret stimuli.

[Margot]

Of course I expect a reaction !
What that reaction is, however, remains beyond my control.

Our labware is contaminated simply by our having individual & unique experiences which shaped us into who we are. That cannot be undone.

Those experiences shape how we interpret stimuli.

Cultures of bacteria do not respond to stimuli in exactly the same way as one another. Does that change the stimuli?

[The Drunk Guy]

I've put off my reply to this thread for too long, but here it is...

Language = natural process
Linguistics = science

Just that simple. Hell, I didn't even quote some boring asshole.

[WFCY]

I've put off my reply to this thread for too long, but here it is...

Language = natural process
Linguistics = science

Just that simple. Hell, I didn't even quote some boring asshole.

just did for you.

welcome :)

[Mind's Eye]

Cultures of bacteria do not respond to stimuli in exactly the same way as one another. Does that change the stimuli?

You're just not getting it.

Whether one compares the human mind to a flask, or now to bacteria, the result is the same. No two are alike.

And yes, the dis-similar responses do change the stimuli.
The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response.

[Margot]

You're just not getting it.

Whether one compares the human mind to a flask, or now to bacteria, the result is the same. No two are alike.

And yes, the dis-similar responses do change the stimuli.
The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response.

No, I get you clearly (mostly). I think you're wrong (entirely).

Does the dissimilar response change the stimuli, or does the stimuli change to elicit the response? You're saying two different things. Do you mean to?

"The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response" seems to indicate that you believe language to have a will of its own outside of its use as a tool by speakers. Is this true? Or are you considering the person to be the stimuli? This is fine, and valid, but not to this argument. "Language" is the noun we're aiming for, not "person."

Please give me an example of when a tool changes its inherent nature to elicit the response desired by the researcher. I'm seriously curious!

[Mind's Eye]

No, I get you clearly (mostly). I think you're wrong (entirely).

Does the dissimilar response change the stimuli, or does the stimuli change to elicit the response? You're saying two different things. Do you mean to?
Yes and yes.

If the identical use of language produces dis-similar results, the material & methods ( input ) must be revised to achieve conforming results. That is the definition of a successful science experiment after all - repeatable results.

And since this " experiment " is being conducted upon humans, I do not believe than any amount of revisions will be able to produce conforming results. Sure, we have tendencies, but nowhere near 100%.


"The stimuli changes in an attempt to elicit the preferred response" seems to indicate that you believe language to have a will of its own outside of its use as a tool by speakers. Is this true? Or are you considering the person to be the stimuli? This is fine, and valid, but not to this argument. "Language" is the noun we're aiming for, not "person."

Please give me an example of when a tool changes its inherent nature to elicit the response desired by the researcher. I'm seriously curious!

A person's choice of words will, by necessity, change to suit the audience.

Language is akin to a bullit leaving a gun. Once it exits, control is lost. Sure, one knows what was intended but again how an audience receives the input is unknowable to the speaker.

Does one speak to a 3 year old the same as he or she speaks to a 33 year old ? I would hope not.

Does the environment in which one is conversing affect the choice of one's words ? I would hope so.


Language is not only a hammer, and our minds are not only a nail.

[Michael]

Please give me an example of when a tool changes its inherent nature to elicit the response desired by the researcher. I'm seriously curious!
When the tool used is a human being.

[Americano]

Yes and yes.

If the identical use of language produces dis-similar results, the material & methods ( input ) must be revised to achieve conforming results. That is the definition of a successful science experiment after all - repeatable results.

And since this " experiment " is being conducted upon humans, I do not believe than any amount of revisions will be able to produce conforming results. Sure, we have tendencies, but nowhere near 100%.




A person's choice of words will, by necessity, change to suit the audience.

Language is akin to a bullit leaving a gun. Once it exits, control is lost. Sure, one knows what was intended but again how an audience receives the input is unknowable to the speaker.

Does one speak to a 3 year old the same as he or she speaks to a 33 year old ? I would hope not.

Does the environment in which one is conversing affect the choice of one's words ? I would hope so.

If not, one has made the decision to be a very boring individual.

Language is not only a hammer, and our minds are not only a nail.

[Margot]

When the tool used is a human being.

So I could pick up a hammer and turn it into a kitten?

[Michael]

So I could pick up a hammer and turn it into a kitten?
Okay, I'm out of this thread now. :shrug:

Whatever issue you are discussing is obviously outside of my understanding.

[WFCY]

Okay, I'm out of this thread now. :shrug:

Whatever issue you are discussing is obviously outside of my understanding.

lol, yeah, mine too. by now.

[Michael]

lol, yeah, mine too. by now.

I'll try to get back to your last post in this discussion. I really do think there is an important issue buried in there.

[WFCY]

I'll try to get back to your last post in this discussion. I really do think there is an important issue buried in there.

sure. but if it is about logical contradictions in definitions like "deny the existence of god", I really don't know what more is to say- I agree it is a logical contradiction, but in the context of contrasting with agnosticism, atheism is really just that. Ofc, it can mean more things in other contexts. I am by no means excluding that possibility.

Stuff like this happens, I am trying to think of some other examples.

[WFCY]

I don't know if this helps the argument, but I'm in the middle of my summer biblical greek intensive. Now Biblical greek is a little later in time (and thus the meanings are different), but after looking up the word, ἄθεος can mean a lot depending on context. However, there was this line in my dictionary: "in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state"

(sorry I forgot to reply to this post).

Exactly what I was saying.

Time changes and concepts develop, a term's denotations/meaning could be broad when it was first elicited, but as philosophical concepts develop, new ideas emerge requiring finer demarcations, new terms take away certain parts of the old term's denotations/meaning. It is a historical and intellectual pheonmenon not quite the same as how words change their meaning during an instantaneous discourse. Because when a word's philosophical/technical definition changes through the former process, it does not revert back to its original, unlike the latter.

Around about the same time when "atheism" was used to describe all those things- agnosticism, pagnism, and irreverance of the god/gods: the word "mathematics" and "meta-phyiscs" used to encompass all scientific pursuits (and non-scientific matters) from geography, physics, astronomy, astrology, ontology, religion, meaning of life- to logic and rhetorics. Now we have all these words, and what is "meta-physics" left with? The answer may not be a contradiction, but "metaphyiscs" may well have ceased to exist a very long time ago, we are just not aware of it.

[Mind's Eye]

So I could pick up a hammer and turn it into a kitten?

http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0039_HAMMER_CAT.jpg


Mayhap this thread has lost it's bearings ?

[Non Sequitur]

(sorry I forgot to reply to this post).

Exactly what I was saying.

Time changes and concepts develop, a term's denotations/meaning could be broad when it was first elicited, but as philosophical concepts develop, new ideas emerge requiring finer demarcations, new terms take away certain parts of the old term's denotations/meaning. It is a historical and intellectual pheonmenon not quite the same as how words change their meaning during an instantaneous discourse. Because when a word's philosophical/technical definition changes through the former process, it does not revert back to its original, unlike the latter.

Around about the same time when "atheism" was used to describe all those things- agnosticism, pagnism, and irreverance of the god/gods: the word "mathematics" and "meta-phyiscs" used to encompass all scientific pursuits (and non-scientific matters) from geography, physics, astronomy, astrology, ontology, religion, meaning of life- to logic and rhetorics. Now we have all these words, and what is "meta-physics" left with? The answer may not be a contradiction, but "metaphyiscs" may well have ceased to exist a very long time ago, we are just not aware of it.

I'm glad it helped. I just thought that since I'm finishing up a greek intensive i would throw my two cents in.

[Michael]

http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0039_HAMMER_CAT.jpg


Mayhap this thread has lost it's bearings ?

:rofl: Indeed, it does seem to be so.

[Margot]

Okay, I'm out of this thread now. :shrug:

Whatever issue you are discussing is obviously outside of my understanding.

Exactly my point! Well, not that you're out of the loop, but that your criteria leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

My point is that one can select the tools that he or she uses, but he or she cannot change the inherent nature of the tool itself.

Telling me that because I use a word I change that word is like asking me to take a hammer and turn it into a kitten. I suppose I could pet a hammer and pretend that it's a kitten, but that won't make sense to anyone else.

My entire premise through this thread has been this:

The relationship between the speaker/writer/user to the words is not nearly as wishy-washy as people imagine. Not only do words have precise meanings with scientifically premised origins (but oh! how the word "science" offends!), but their place in language is also subject to precision. People may misuse words, but that is like trying to pet a hammer, or pound in nails with a kitten. That is bad science, and bad science exists, but the scientific aspect is still there.

[WFCY]

My point is that one can select the tools that he or she uses, but he or she cannot change the inherent nature of the tool itself.

Telling me that because I use a word I change that word is like asking me to take a hammer and turn it into a kitten. I suppose I could pet a hammer and pretend that it's a kitten, but that won't make sense to anyone else.


Your entire argument hinges on a metaphor, instead of any actual evidence independent of it. The metaphor that compares a hammer to a language, or a kitten to a language, is inadequate. It is a false metaphor, also known as Equivocation among logical fallacies. Its structure goes as follows:

Object A and object B share the property p, for this reason the speaker compares A and B in a metaphor as "the same".

After establishing the metaphor, the speaker continues to claim that A and B are "the same" with regard to their properties q, r, s, and t.

A and B fail to have the same properties q, r, s, and t.

All you are saying this whole time is that natural language is a tool used by human beings to communicate with one another, just like hammers are tools. Hammers and Cats are both objects or tools which are supposed to have some purposes (to nail nails, or to be pet). So if hammers and cats are concrete, visiable, touchable, have designated purposes, do not change forms according to context etc, then so must language. They share every one of their attribute, as long as you insist upon it.

It's like me making a metaphor about how cars and horses are the same- as they are both transportation tools, then conclude cars ought to be flesh and blood animals too, because horses are flesh and blood animals.

Language may be used as a tool of communication, but even its purpose goes far beyond that. It is neither tangiable nor touchable. It is neither concrete nor inmalleable. It is a completely abstract collection of entities (words, affixes, parts of speech, intonation/stress, contexts) and rules which combine them. Hammers have manufacturers, cats have mothers and fathers. If you investigate, you can find out where and who made the hammer, who designed it, and who are the parents of a particular cat. Language on the other hand, is evolved by a community of people, with sub-classes of it being decided and changed by different sub-group of this community, at different times- this evolution is still taking place, the community itself evolves and changes, and this process will never cease, is always ongoing. So there are very little similarities in substance between a language and a hammer or a cat beyond your faulty rhetorics.


My entire premise through this thread has been this:

The relationship between the speaker/writer/user to the words is not nearly as wishy-washy as people imagine. Not only do words have precise meanings with scientifically premised origins (but oh! how the word "science" offends!), but their place in language is also subject to precision. People may misuse words, but that is like trying to pet a hammer, or pound in nails with a kitten. That is bad science, and bad science exists, but the scientific aspect is still there.

Certain language use are inherently ambiguous, even when the interlocutors are being perfectly cooperative. Not every unexpected outcome in language use are due to "wishy-washy" "misuse" of language.

There are thousands of linguistic phenomena that linguists study and try to explain these ambiguities and logical irregularities. I already gave a simple example of syntactic ambiguity. I can give some more:

"John opened the door again"- does it mean 1. door was closed, now someone opened it? or 2. door was once open by John before, now he re-opened it?

"Every patient sees a nurse once a day"- is it the same nurse they see, or a different one for each?

"We took the picnic supplies out of the trunk, the beer was warm". Is the beer from the trunk? Can we be certain that a latter utterance will not change it's origin?

"I am sorry that your cat died", what if your cat did not die? what if you do not own a cat? and what if I am simply sincere but uninformed? Is this sentence true? or false? Does it have meaning beyond truth conditions?

"Unicorns do not exist"- Isn't this a logical contradiction? If you say something it ought to exist in some way.

"The highest mountains in the world are Mt.Everest, K2, and the second highest mountains are Kangchenjunga and Lhotse..." Now, looking at Makalu- is it the third highest mountain? Or is it the fifth highest mountain? You get different answers from different people. There is no agreement on it.

It goes on and on and on. There is a multitude of extremely complicated and competitive theories in syntax, semantics and pragmatics that tries to explain why these expressions exhibit the problems above. Linguistics, the study of language as a genetic trait, and as a logical construct, is science. But the use of language, is almost arbitrary and never precise, because of the nature of language itself. And for this reason, it cannot be described as scientific. It does not conform in any way what so ever those criterion (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/) set up by people who have worked on the question of what is and isn't science, people like the Vienna Circle, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Rothbart, etcetc.

[Margot]

Your entire argument hinges on a metaphor, instead of any actual evidence independent of it. The metaphor that compares a hammer to a language, or a kitten to a language, is inadequate. It is a false metaphor, also known as Equivocation among logical fallacies. Its structure goes as follows:

Object A and object B share the property p, for this reason the speaker compares A and B in a metaphor as "the same".

After establishing the metaphor, the speaker continues to claim that A and B are "the same" with regard to their properties q, r, s, and t.

A and B fail to have the same properties q, r, s, and t.

All you are saying this whole time is that natural language is a tool used by human beings to communicate with one another, just like hammers are tools. Hammers and Cats are both objects or tools which are supposed to have some purposes (to nail nails, or to be pet). So if hammers and cats are concrete, visiable, touchable, have designated purposes, do not change forms according to context etc, then so must language. They share every one of their attribute, as long as you insist upon it.

It's like me making a metaphor about how cars and horses are the same- as they are both transportation tools, then conclude cars ought to be flesh and blood animals too, because horses are flesh and blood animals.

Language may be used as a tool of communication, but even its purpose goes far beyond that. It is neither tangiable nor touchable. It is neither concrete nor inmalleable. It is a completely abstract collection of entities (words, affixes, parts of speech, intonation/stress, contexts) and rules which combine them. Hammers have manufacturers, cats have mothers and fathers. If you investigate, you can find out where and who made the hammer, who designed it, and who are the parents of a particular cat. Language on the other hand, is evolved by a community of people, with sub-classes of it being decided and changed by different sub-group of this community, at different times- this evolution is still taking place, the community itself evolves and changes, and this process will never cease, is always ongoing. So there are very little similarities in substance between a language and a hammer or a cat beyond your faulty rhetorics.



Certain language use are inherently ambiguous, even when the interlocutors are being perfectly cooperative. Not every unexpected outcome in language use are due to "wishy-washy" "misuse" of language.

There are thousands of linguistic phenomena that linguists study and try to explain these ambiguities and logical irregularities. I already gave a simple example of syntactic ambiguity. I can give some more:

"John opened the door again"- does it mean 1. door was closed, now someone opened it? or 2. door was once open by John before, now he re-opened it?

"Every patient sees a nurse once a day"- is it the same nurse they see, or a different one for each?

"We took the picnic supplies out of the trunk, the beer was warm". Is the beer from the trunk? Can we be certain that a latter utterance will not change it's origin?

"I am sorry that your cat died", what if your cat did not die? what if you do not own a cat? and what if I am simply sincere but uninformed? Is this sentence true? or false? Does it have meaning beyond truth conditions?

"Unicorns do not exist"- Isn't this a logical contradiction? If you say something it ought to exist in some way.

"The highest mountains in the world are Mt.Everest, K2, and the second highest mountains are Kangchenjunga and Lhotse..." Now, looking at Makalu- is it the third highest mountain? Or is it the fifth highest mountain? You get different answers from different people. There is no agreement on it.

It goes on and on and on. There is a multitude of extremely complicated and competitive theories in syntax, semantics and pragmatics that tries to explain why these expressions exhibit the problems above. Linguistics, the study of language as a genetic trait, and as a logical construct, is science. But the use of language, is almost arbitrary and never precise, because of the nature of language itself. And for this reason, it cannot be described as scientific. It does not conform in any way what so ever those criterion (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/) set up by people who have worked on the question of what is and isn't science, people like the Vienna Circle, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Rothbart, etcetc.

tldr
:)

[WFCY]

tldr
:)

tl;dr version: Margot's intelligence and the intellectual pretentiousness of her thead op, have been proven by herself to be seriously overrated.

always glad to help :)

[Michael]

tldr
:)

tl;dr version: Margot's intelligence and the intellectual pretentiousness of her thead op, have been proven by herself to be seriously overrated.

always glad to help :)

I would have thought the two of you would be familiar with this forum feature... tl;dr. :D

*Just highlight the word and click on the funky "u" symbol in the post window. :)

Some of us older folks aren't always up on txt-speak and need to look it up! ;)

[Margot]

I would have thought the two of you would be familiar with this forum feature... tl;dr. :D

*Just highlight the word and click on the funky "u" symbol in the post window. :)

Some of us older folks aren't always up on txt-speak and need to look it up! ;)

OK,
A) That is neat and I didn't know about that!
B) I was trying to make a joke re: text speak and my own confusion earlier about "ofc."

[Michael]

OK,
A) That is neat and I didn't know about that!
B) I was trying to make a joke re: text speak and my own confusion earlier about "ofc."
I figured you would enjoy that Urban Dictionary toy. :)

Btw, I had no clue about "ofc" either. :lol:

Given the speed that I can type at, the idea of using short form abbreviations for common words seems rather useless to me since it doesn't actually save any time or effort and just introduces confusion for the reader. :shrug:

[The Drunk Girl]

Agreed...I have had to Google some of that shit, too. No offense, to either side, but I am just not big on it. If someone says, "OMG" to me in person I swear to god I get this nervous tick going on.

Speaking of Urban Dictionary: Margot, I am shocked you have never heard of it. Bad girl ;)

And, just for fun type in your name in the search box on their site. Lame, I am sure, but it is good for a few minutes of stupid entertainment.

Example (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amber)

(Sorry, I got a tad excited. Here is the third definition for Margot: a hot french chick who talks like she's drunk all the time and makes you wanna bang her all night long) :rofl:

[Michael]

And, just for fun type in your name in the search box on their site. Lame, I am sure, but it is good for a few minutes of stupid entertainment.

Example (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amber)

(Sorry, I got a tad excited. Here is the third definition for Margot: a hot french chick who talks like she's drunk all the time and makes you wanna bang her all night long) :rofl:


Amber definition #5 seems rather appropriate! ;)

As always, definitions of "Michael" are always flattering. Can't go wrong when one's name "He who is like God!" :lol:

[The Drunk Girl]

Amber definition #5 seems rather appropriate! ;)

As always, definitions of "Michael" are always flattering. Can't go wrong when one's name "He who is like God!" :lol:

Aww..shucks :lol:

Too bad the grammar isn't better ;) I am flattered that you recognize my ability to be a bitch

[WFCY]

Gee, you guys are slow (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=31176&postcount=79).

I have always enjoyed choice terms such as Swedish Rodeo, Dutch Oven, and the famous Hungarian Stew.

Nice changing the subject btw- oh wait, we are talking about urban dictionary, the finest source for scientific evidence on the internet.

[Michael]

Speaking of dictionaries, the OED always describes the origin and evolution of the meanings of any given word in the English language. Some English words have meanings that are categorically opposite to what the word meant one hundred or three hundred years ago.

If words had a 'scientific' character of precision that is intrinsic to the word itself, I don't see how it is possible for such words to 'evolve' over time.

[JHC]

Do you remember the first time you experienced letters in math? What a fantastic new concept! "n" represents a number and a number is a physical value concept. "Let 'a' represent...." is usually where children begin to struggle with mathematics.

Mathematical symbols are no different than words in the way they are used to represent things or concepts. When letters are used in math, students must unlearn what they know about letters. Up to this point, letters were parts of words and usually had no meaning alone. They were phonemes (individual sounds in a word).

Suddenly, a letter represented something else - a complete concept. What's worse, it represented a concept that was not completely defined but could be with some effort.

Language is the same- representations of things or concepts or even thoughts.

The better we understand and use the language, the better we think. The more words we use and the better crafted our system of language, the better we think. We are appropriating tools for ever more sophisticated and subtle concepts. Do you think it is possible to even think of thinking without words used to represent concepts - words used as place holders in our minds like mathematical symbols are placeholders for scaffolding ever greater equations.

Focusing on how we use language is literally focusing on using the best tools for the best outcome. Why would we wish for anything less?

Did anyone bring up Finnegans Wake yet?
I know a lot of people think this is a book of nonsense but think about what Joyce achieves. I'm going to a random page for the following quote:
Nuvoletta in her lightdress, spunn of sisteen shimmers, was looking down on them, leaning over the bannistars and listening all she childishly could. How she was brightened when Shouldrups in his glaubering hochskied his welkinstuck and how she was overclused when Kneesknobs on his zwvvel was makeacting such a paulse of himshelp!

What? 628 pages in my copy. One has to work very, hard to achieve understanding. The language is different and the concepts are unexpected. Like being introduced to algebra.

So what is the purpose of Finnegans Wake? Perhaps just that - an exercise in using word tools to expand consciousness. Was Shakespeare different? I don't think so.

But, working up to Joyce and Shakespeare is like working up to calculus in math. When people throw words around without regard to the concepts those words represent, they are not achieving anything. This is where I side with Margot.

My oldest sister was married to a man that liked words. He liked the way they sounded and he liked the way people respected him when he used them. The problem was that he didn't know how to use them. Anyone that did know how to use them thought he was a fool and anyone that didn't know how to use them were fools just like him. What does that achieve? Foolishness.

[JHC]

Speaking of dictionaries, the OED always describes the origin and evolution of the meanings of any given word in the English language. Some English words have meanings that are categorically opposite to what the word meant one hundred or three hundred years ago.

If words had a 'scientific' character of precision that is intrinsic to the word itself, I don't see how it is possible for such words to 'evolve' over time.

Oh I do. For the same reason that people think that their chances of winning the lottery are better if they play the same number every week. Simple ignorance. I will be blunt: language changes because people are ignorant.

Clearly, if this is true, then we communicate less well when we are forced to dumb down in order to be understood by those who refuse to wise up.

Too harsh? :D

[Margot]

Oh I do. For the same reason that people think that their chances of winning the lottery are better if they play the same number every week. Simple ignorance. I will be blunt: language changes because people are ignorant.

Clearly, if this is true, then we communicate less well when we are forced to dumb down in order to be understood by those who refuse to wise up.

Too harsh? :D

THANK YOU!

I'm probably the only girl who went through her teen years adding "except for my mommy" to the classic "no one understands me!"

[JHC]

Of course I expect a reaction !
What that reaction is, however, remains beyond my control.

Our labware is contaminated simply by our having individual & unique experiences which shaped us into who we are. That cannot be undone.

Those experiences shape how we interpret stimuli.

I think I disagree. You may not be able to guarantee the response but there is high probability that you will receive a response within certain boundaries. Why? because it is understood as part of our system of communication.

All labware is contaminated. All experiments are imperfect. All conclusions are probabilities.

I think the point Margot is making is that just because you can not expect perfection doesn't mean you can't learn anything and should just give up trying. I might be wrong about that.

Lets talk about the difference between precision and accuracy using the word atheist as an example:

To be precise only requires that everyone agree that the word atheist means one who believes that God does not exist. This represent a cluster on a bull's eye that is far from the center, maybe not even within the rings but still a tight cluster.

To be accurate is to have a single mark dead center in the bull's eye. The prefix 'a is defined as meaning without. Theist is defined as one who believes in a god or gods. This is a bull's eye.

Only one person needs to be accurate while 20 others may represent precision.

This is to say that 20 attempts missed the mark but there is likely some bias in the experiment that has caused these 20 to be off the mark.
So does this mean that the results are valid? No. It means the experiment has been carried out with built-in error.

Now, think about this mixing of metaphors, (science and language). If we were talking about a real scientific experiment, then continuing with the built-in error leads to misunderstanding of results and, eventually, after much frustration, a breakdown of the entire system.

If science is a decent metaphor, then we might expect the same thing to happen to language if we continue with the built-in error. Has it happened? Do people agree about what the word atheist means? Does it cause frustration? Is there a breakdown of the actual system such that the rules of words don't even apply anymore? Does 'a not longer mean without? Is a theist no longer one who believes in a god or gods? Does putting the two together mean something different in this one case than it does in all other cases?

[JHC]

THANK YOU!

I'm probably the only girl who went through her teen years adding "except for my mommy" to the classic "no one understands me!"

:rofl:

I don't think you're supposed to confess that aloud.

[JHC]

Yes and yes.

If the identical use of language produces dis-similar results, the material & methods ( input ) must be revised to achieve conforming results. That is the definition of a successful science experiment after all - repeatable results.

And since this " experiment " is being conducted upon humans, I do not believe than any amount of revisions will be able to produce conforming results. Sure, we have tendencies, but nowhere near 100%.
100% or nothing is a false dichotomy. If you order iced tea and there is a communication problem, would you prefer to receive hot tea or a bamboo shoot in the eye?



A person's choice of words will, by necessity, change to suit the audience.

Language is akin to a bullit leaving a gun. Once it exits, control is lost. Sure, one knows what was intended but again how an audience receives the input is unknowable to the speaker.

Does one speak to a 3 year old the same as he or she speaks to a 33 year old ? I would hope not.

Does the environment in which one is conversing affect the choice of one's words ? I would hope so.


Language is not only a hammer, and our minds are not only a nail.
It may be unknowable specifically, but it can be expected within certain limits. This is not imprecise! This is precision. To know how to use the tool is exactly what this is all about.

The example of the three year old is a really interesting one. Not until a human is about 6 years old do they have the capacity to connect word concepts. A 3 year old may understand that the man with the beard and blue eyes is Daddy. The same three year old may understand that the room with a toilet is a bathroom. But the 3 year old will not understand that Daddy is in the bathroom when you tell them.

The interesting part of that example is that when they are about 6, children learn both how to connect concepts and how to think about thinking. They will suddenly start to realize that Mommy and Daddy are thinking and things are not random.

[JHC]

I think this thread is crying out for a shared definition of "literal". What defines the literal meaning of a word or phrase? What? I can't believe it! To be literal literally means to use the construction or primary meaning. Therefore the literal definition is exactly what Margot said it was. It is both the constructed and primary meaning.

Is it the commonly accepted definition?
Is it the official definition given by the language's governing body (or whatever might be closest for languages that don't have one of these)?
Is it the original definition?

If we're to look at the word "atheism", then the commonly accepted definition (at least in the US) is, roughly, one who believes God(s) do(es) not exist; the dictionary definition is either "a disbelief in the existence of deity" or "the doctrine that there is no deity"; and the original definition is akin to "ungodliness" or "wickedness" and, as Michael pointed out, was generally used with regard to some Christians by others.

IMO, all of these are "literal" definitions. As long as you use the word "atheist" in a non-symbolic, non-metaphorical sense, then you're using the word literally.

I can respect Margot's desire to break the word down into its root components, but I suggest that in this case that approach is, at best, arbitrary and open to interpretation.
She breaks it down as 'a'-negative 'theism'-belief in God => "not believing in God". Thus she has the prefix modify the belief, the 'ism'. But it makes at least as much sense to break it down as 'a'-negative 'theo'-God 'ism'-belief => (no God) belief => "the belief in no God." Here the prefix modifies 'theo' rather than 'ism'. That would follow the pattern of "polytheism" (poly-many theo-God ism-belief => (many gods) belief => belief in many gods). If we used Margot's system, we would define polytheism as "many beliefs in God", which clearly isn't right.

Anyway, at the very least, the "literal" definition should never be one that is neither the common, nor the official, nor the original use of a word. In the case of "atheism," Margot's definition is one of the official definitions, but it is not the only one nor is it the original or common usage. As such, I don't see how it has any greater claim to being the "literal" definition than the more common, equally official alternative.

[wphelan]

Oh I do. For the same reason that people think that their chances of winning the lottery are better if they play the same number every week. Simple ignorance. I will be blunt: language changes because people are ignorant.

Clearly, if this is true, then we communicate less well when we are forced to dumb down in order to be understood by those who refuse to wise up.

Too harsh? :D

There are plenty of reasons language evolves besides ignorance. Cultural influences, new technologies, new experiences, new ideas, etc.

What's the definition of tweet?

[JHC]

There are plenty of reasons language evolves besides ignorance. Cultural influences, new technologies, new experiences, new ideas, etc.

What's the definition of tweet?

You have to read my response in context. Michael was talking about the evolution of specific words in which meanings get turned around 180 degrees.

[wphelan]

You have to read my response in context. Michael was talking about the evolution of specific words in which meanings get turned around 180 degrees.

I've read the entire thread. My point is that words do not change meaning overnight, and to say it is only ignorance that changes the meaning of words, even in that context, is wrong. Everything I mentioned influences language gradually. If the meaning of a word has evolved to mean the opposite of what it used to 300 years ago, it didn't have to do it in one day. The word tweet, for example, has recently been giving a new meaning because of a new technology. It has been slightly altered. That slight alteration could give rise to it being used in another context even further removed from its 'original' meaning somewhere down the road. Ignorance isn't necessarily a factor.

[JHC]

I've read the entire thread. My point is that words do not change meaning overnight, and to say it is only ignorance that changes the meaning of words, even in that context, is wrong. Everything I mentioned influences language gradually. If the meaning of a word has evolved to mean the opposite of what it used to 300 years ago, it didn't have to do it in one day. The word tweet, for example, has recently been giving a new meaning because of a new technology. It has been slightly altered. That slight alteration could give rise to it being used in another context even further removed from its 'original' meaning somewhere down the road. Ignorance isn't necessarily a factor.

Are you trying to say that, by virtue of assignment to a new technology, the word tweet will cease to be an onomatopoeia representing the sound of a bird?

[Michael]

I've read the entire thread. My point is that words do not change meaning overnight, and to say it is only ignorance that changes the meaning of words, even in that context, is wrong. Everything I mentioned influences language gradually. If the meaning of a word has evolved to mean the opposite of what it used to 300 years ago, it didn't have to do it in one day. The word tweet, for example, has recently been giving a new meaning because of a new technology. It has been slightly altered. That slight alteration could give rise to it being used in another context even further removed from its 'original' meaning somewhere down the road. Ignorance isn't necessarily a factor.

Yes, the meanings of some words can change over time. But the old meanings never seem to die.

The term "boy" or "girl" both originate in the English language as terms specifically for servants. Both terms have developed a new and common meaning as generic terms for children or minors. But if you call an adult black man a "boy" you are implying the old meaning of the word and that's obnoxious and racist, even though that man is indeed, a male.