01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHAtheists could identify themselves as "ambivalent" if they wanted to. My list was not 'six atheists'. It was a description of what "ambivalent" could mean with regard to atheists. If you read what I wrote again, you can see how much the descriptions overlap. You have said that you've listened to the podcast so you should realize there are not six types of atheist described. They simply hold a discussion about what the scope and application of the term "ambivalent atheist" might be.
By chance do you mean that in place of all the atheists marked ambivalent atheists in your list of 6 ambivalent atheists you would have some other description such as diplomatic atheists to be chosen on a survey?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by JerryHIn the podcast, Lois Lee talks about surveys that offer long lists of religions so people can indicate their affiliation and thus (supposedly) their belief but then these surveys might have "convinced atheist" as the only option for those who foreswear religion or who don't subscribe to there being a "God".
By chance do you mean that in place of all the atheists marked ambivalent atheists in your list of 6 ambivalent atheists you would have some other description such as diplomatic atheists to be chosen on a survey?
The programme's blurb says: "In the UK today a variety of identity labels exist which articulate non belief ~ atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, rationalist, free thinker and sceptic. Most of these terms are associated with organised and activist forms of non religion. But what of the ambivalent atheist, whose beliefs may be fuzzier, less clear cut?"
I think the term "ambivalent atheist" is interesting and thought provoking - and certainly helps with the consideration of the reality and diversity of people's belief and lack of belief.
Originally posted by JerryHNo, I am not. Nothing I have said would even suggest that.
You, googlefudge and others seem to be making the same error. You are confusing objects with their definitions.
The earth won't change in the sense the that googlefudge means it won't change when[if] Mercury's orbit destabilizes but it's definition will.
That depends very much on what definition you are talking about.
A definition is an imperfect attempt to capture the truth of an object.
No, it isn't.
A definition can be wrong.
No, it cannot.
A definition is made up of observations.
No it isn't.
A definition can and even must change as it approaches the ultimate truth of an object.
Not so.
It seems to me that it is very much the case that it is you that is confusing objects with definitions.
The reality is that a definition describes something. Whether or not an object matches what is described changes whether or not that something fits the definition.
So if the definition of 'planet' is changed then Pluto may no longer be a planet. Whereas you are claiming that if Pluto changes then the definition of 'planet' must change to still include it. As you well know that is not what happened.
Originally posted by SuzianneNot directly critical, but definitely essential. One could argue that writing is equally critical. Language and communication in general is impossible without definitions. That doesn't, however, go against anything I have said.
Aren't definitions critical to the scientific method?
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe definition of the earth as something flat wasn't an imperfect attempt?
No, I am not. Nothing I have said would even suggest that.
[b]The earth won't change in the sense the that googlefudge means it won't change when[if] Mercury's orbit destabilizes but it's definition will.
That depends very much on what definition you are talking about.
A definition is an imperfect attempt to capture the truth of an object.[ ...[text shortened]... inition of 'planet' must change to still include it. As you well know that is not what happened.
If a definition can't be wrong why did the definition of planet change?
If a definition is not made up of observations then what is it made up of?
A definition can and even must change as it approaches the ultimate truth of an object and again: Why did the definition of planet change?
quote twhitehead: "The reality is that a definition describes something. Whether or not an object matches what is described changes whether or not that something fits the definition." Are you saying that we first make definitions and then try to fit objects to them?
What am I claiming about Pluto? If the definition of a planet changes and Pluto no longer fits the definition of a planet then Pluto's definition must also change. If Pluto changes, say explodes, I most certainly am not saying that the definition of planet or dwarf planet must now include rubble. Where did you get this?
Originally posted by JerryHThere never was such a definition as far as I know. You seem to be very confused about the definition of 'definition' despite having looked it up in a dictionary. Some people may have thought the earth was flat (and freaky still does), but that belief is not a 'definition'.
The definition of the earth as something flat wasn't an imperfect attempt?
If a definition can't be wrong why did the definition of planet change?
Because it was useful to change it. The old definition was not wrong.
A definition can and even must change as it approaches the ultimate truth of an object and again: Why did the definition of planet change?
You are confusing 'description' with 'definition'. There is a difference in spelling.
Are you saying that we first make definitions and then try to fit objects to them?
It varies.
If Pluto changes, say explodes, I most certainly am not saying that the definition of planet or dwarf planet must now include rubble. Where did you get this?
Does the definition of 'Pluto' include rubble?
You are either very confused, or just acting confused to avoid admitting your error.
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe old definition of planet which allows Pluto is correct and the new definition of planet which disallows Pluto is correct?
There never was such a definition as far as I know. You seem to be very confused about the definition of 'definition' despite having looked it up in a dictionary. Some people may have thought the earth was flat (and freaky still does), but that belief is not a 'definition'.
[b]If a definition can't be wrong why did the definition of planet change? ...[text shortened]... rubble?
You are either very confused, or just acting confused to avoid admitting your error.[/b]
01 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow was the earth defined before it was realized to be spherical? How is the earth defined now?
There never was such a definition as far as I know. You seem to be very confused about the definition of 'definition' despite having looked it up in a dictionary. Some people may have thought the earth was flat (and freaky still does), but that belief is not a 'definition'.
[b]If a definition can't be wrong why did the definition of planet change? ...[text shortened]... rubble?
You are either very confused, or just acting confused to avoid admitting your error.[/b]
Originally posted by JerryHNo, they are definitions. They do not have a truth value. They cannot be called 'correct' or 'incorrect'. They are merely a means of communication. 20 years ago if I said 'planet' I meant something that had certain properties and that would have included Pluto. If I said 'planet' today, I would most likely mean something that had certain properties that would not include Pluto. All that matters is that you understand what I mean when I say 'planet'. If I am using it in a non-standard way then I should make it clear that I am doing so when I use it - for the sake of good communication. But I am not wrong to use it in a non-standard way, nor can my usage be correct or incorrect.
The old definition of planet which allows Pluto is correct and the new definition of planet which disallows Pluto is correct?
Originally posted by JerryHHow it is defined varies significantly from person to person and also depending on context. The most common usage has it referring to the body of rock etc. that we live on. Nothing more specific than that.
How was the earth defined before it was realized to be spherical? How is the earth defined now?
You on the other hand seem to think that if a meteor from Mars lands on earth the the Earth has changed ever so slightly and we must make a new definition and update all our dictionaries. If I stand on my head, then the Earth has changed ever so slightly and we must change our definition and update all our dictionaries and anyone who doesn't has the 'wrong' definition.
You are mistaken.
I think you are also confusing Earth as a noun with Earth as a definition. I think the word Earth is actually more of a noun than a definition ie it refers to a specific object. One could call it a very specific definition but I think it is not helpful to think of it that way and that your doing so has lead to some confusion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree in substance, but I would tend to argue that definitions CAN be wrong in a normative sense.
No, they are definitions. They do not have a truth value. They cannot be called 'correct' or 'incorrect'. They are merely a means of communication. 20 years ago if I said 'planet' I meant something that had certain properties and that would have included Pluto. If I said 'planet' today, I would most likely mean something that had certain properties that w ...[text shortened]... n. But I am not wrong to use it in a non-standard way, nor can my usage be correct or incorrect.
So if someone uses a word in a way contrary to all generally accepted use then I will say that "that
is wrong, that's not what that word means" [or possibly quote Inigo Montoya] however that is a
semantic and not substantive difference.
I otherwise agree with all your points.
As a wider point... I am not sure that 'The Earth' is a word that HAS a definition in the normal sense.
Unlike the word 'planet' which is a category label for a certain set of objects. And has a set of criteria for
determining if an object qualifies as a member of that set [the words definition].
The Earth is the NAME of a particular object.
Asking for the 'definition' of 'The Earth' is like asking for "the definition of Kevin".... as a question it doesn't
make a whole lot of sense.
EDIT: However if you are going to push, the 'the definition' of 'The Earth' is probably going to be something
like "The name label for the planet humans originated and currently live on"