29 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillIf you had followed me, you would agree with me. Its not a grey area. Its very straight forward. If you still disagree, then you are not following.
Following you may not be agreeing with you.
I think stupid is probably attempting to propose that scientific definitions are not science. They are a part of the body of scientifc knowledge.
Definitions are not knowledge. Definitions are a way to communicate knowledge. You need to think of definitions as nouns. The word 'jaywill' is a noun. It refers to you as a poster. It isn't knowledge. If a noun refers to a 'scientific' object, say 'atom'. The word 'atom' is not knowledge. It is not science. It is a noun used in science.
"Updated" .... "corrected" ... ?
Copied from the Free Dictionary:
Yes, I know you know how to play word games. I am sure however that you got my point, you are just stubborn.
Nope. I think probably any known definition of stars - it communicates.
Which is not what you said earlier - to which I was responding. There really are no other standard definitions that could be used in the sentence given, so it would have to be an unknown definition.
It communcates. I see no reason to remain totally "clueless".
Because you have forgotten what you posted. Go back and read it. Its not that far back.
I think as in the case of "planets" the informed intelligent reader would consider WHEN the stand alone sentence was written.
I'm sure they would. They might also take into consideration the fact that it was written in a different language then translated. But assuming the translation is accurate, I think it reasonable to think that the writer was referring to what we now call 'stars'. But he probably didn't know what they were as we do today.
As far as it being a calamity and rather unnatural. It communicates. That is if you want to be communicated TO.
But it only communicates 'calamity' if you take the literal meaning for 'star'. If you change it to 'fairy dust', it takes on a whole new meaning.
Specifics may be an issue of detail. Generally, why would one be clueless ?
If you don't know what a key word in a sentence means, you will be clueless. Isn't it obvious?
Even if it were "movie stars" falling from the sky, it is communicated that a calamity is taking place which is disturbing and out of the ordinary.
No, it isn't. Movie stars falling from the sky might be seen as something to celebrate. What if it was chocolates? What then?
Any further puzzlement can be cleared up by the surrounding context.
But how can you trust the surrounding context? You are suggesting that we cannot trust the meanings of words. Or are you only wanting to change one word because it makes your religion look bad? Will you be changing all other words that make your religion look bad, or only this once?
29 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
If you had followed me, you would agree with me. Its not a grey area. Its very straight forward. If you still disagree, then you are not following.
[b]I think stupid is probably attempting to propose that scientific definitions are not science. They are a part of the body of scientifc knowledge.
Definitions are not knowledge. Definitions are a way other words that make your religion look bad, or only this once?[/b]
If you had followed me, you would agree with me. Its not a grey area. Its very straight forward. If you still disagree, then you are not following.
Really? That's a confident way of arguing.
"If you disagree, you have not understood me."
So to understand, to "follow" you is to agree with you by default ?
Are you infallible ?
I think stupid is probably attempting to propose that scientific definitions are not science. They are a part of the body of scientifc knowledge.
Definitions are not knowledge.
I don't agree. I follow, but I do not agree.
Maybe you need to refine that a bit.
Definitions are a way to communicate knowledge. You need to think of definitions as nouns.
I think you need to thing of definitions as knowledge.
But if you want to refer me to some further philosophical reading about your concept, go ahead.
Or don't. Its your choice.
The word 'jaywill' is a noun. It refers to you as a poster. It isn't knowledge. If a noun refers to a 'scientific' object, say 'atom'. The word 'atom' is not knowledge. It is not science. It is a noun used in science.
I'll think about that and maybe respond latter.
"Updated" .... "corrected" ... ?
Copied from the Free Dictionary:
Yes, I know you know how to play word games. I am sure however that you got my point, you are just stubborn.
I don't think refering to a Dictionary is playing "word games."
In this case it was pointing out synonymns. "Correct" can be a synonym of "update". You insisted that they're strictly different.
No game here. Just English language.
As far as it being a calamity and rather unnatural. It communicates. That is if you want to be communicated TO.
But it only communicates 'calamity' if you take the literal meaning for 'star'. If you change it to 'fairy dust', it takes on a whole new meaning.
"Fairy dust ?" We wouldn't want to play "word games" here now, would we ?
Specifics may be an issue of detail. Generally, why would one be clueless ?
If you don't know what a key word in a sentence means, you will be clueless. Isn't it obvious?
Even if it were "movie stars" falling from the sky, it is communicated that a calamity is taking place which is disturbing and out of the ordinary.
No, it isn't. Movie stars falling from the sky might be seen as something to celebrate. What if it was chocolates? What then?
Do you have any reason to believe chocolate or fairy dust was what John had in mind in that sentence ?
Can you produce for me a record of anyone in history having taken it that way ?
Any further puzzlement can be cleared up by the surrounding context.
But how can you trust the surrounding context? You are suggesting that we cannot trust the meanings of words. Or are you only wanting to change one word because it makes your religion look bad? Will you be changing all other words that make your religion look bad, or only this once?
The one who looks kind of silly is the one running through the mental gymnastics and word games trying to rationalize away what has been obvious to every other reader of Revelation in history.
Only you are stopping and scratching the head, clueless. You have NO clue ? You have some clue. Maybe you just have contempt for it.
You look kind of bad to me displaying such obtuseness.
Now, words put practical definitions on abstract ideas. Okay. Or something like that. Definitions in science are virtually knowledge. I think you end up with a self refuting claim if you say a noun is not knowledge - in the case of the noun "knowledge".
How does it sound ? "Knowledge is not knowledge"
You were saying something about stubburness leading to stupidity ?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillIn this instance, yes. It is as undeniable as 2+2=4.
Are you infallible ?
I think you need to thing of definitions as knowledge.
But if you want to refer me to some further philosophical reading about your concept, go ahead.
A 'punicorn' is an invisible pink unicorn that hides in a fridge. There, I just made you more knowledgeable.
You need to realise that some apparent definitions in science are in two parts:
1. A definition.
2. A statement about reality.
So when I tell you that a neutron is defined as a particle in the nucleus of the atom with no charge, I am telling you how 'neutron' is defined, but I may also be making a claim that neutrons exist. The claim is not part of the definition. The claim is science and knowledge. The definition is neither.
I don't think refering to a Dictionary is playing "word games."
In this case it was pointing out synonymns. [b] "Correct" can be a synonym of "update". You insisted that they're strictly different. [/b]
I did not insist that they are strictly different. I said one was a better fit than the other. That they can be synonyms is 'word games'. You were deliberately trying to avoid admitting the point - and using dishonest means to achieve that.
Even the word 'correct' can be used, (as it can be a synonym for update), but you clearly intended in your sentence to mean 'change something wrong to something right', whereas with the word 'update' it more accurately reflects the true situation which is 'change something to reflect a change.
When the 'world population' figure in an atlas or encyclopaedia is changed due to population growth, is that a correction, or an update? Do you see it now?
"Fairy dust ?" We wouldn't want to play "word games" here now, would we ?
You said any word could be substituted without changing the meaning. I proved that it could. It is not word games.
Do you have any reason to believe chocolate or fairy dust was what John had in mind in that sentence ?
No, and I have no reason to believe he meant anything other than 'stars'. However, you said that it could mean anything. You clearly have a problem with the fact that the sentence describes an impossible event, so you felt you needed to change some words. I am pointing out that if you do that, you might as well change all the words to anything you like, and that the original sentence has no meaning.
The one who looks kind of silly is the one running through the mental gymnastics and word games trying to rationalize away what has been obvious to every other reader of Revelation in history.
Every reader except you apparently. You want the sentence to be physically possible, so you want to substitute some words.
Only you are stopping and scratching the head, clueless. You have NO clue ?
Go back and read where I said that in context. I clearly said that I would have no clue if the meaning of 'star' was unknown. By deliberately and repeatedly misquoting me on that you are being grossly dishonest. Stop it.
How does it sound ? [b]"Knowledge is not knowledge"[/b]
It doesn't matter how it sounds, its still true. The reason it sounds odd is you forgot the quotes around the first 'knowledge' then read it with its definition in mind. 'Knowledge' is not knowledge.
01 Mar 12
3 edits
Definitions are not knowledge. Definitions are a way to communicate knowledge. You need to think of definitions as nouns. The word 'jaywill' is a noun. It refers to you as a poster. It isn't knowledge. If a noun refers to a 'scientific' object, say 'atom'. The word 'atom' is not knowledge. It is not science. It is a noun used in science.
Looks like "identification" and "description" is a part of "Science".
So, I would say "definitions" of words are a part of Science, for the purpose of "identification" and "description".
=====================================
sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
====================================
02 Mar 12
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThat would be "spelled." 😉
That would be spelt as a noun. As a verb it is the past tense and past participle of spell. So he used the term correctly.
The joke was that I'm sure he knew what he was doing by spelling "spelled" wrong but I'm not quite sure he knew "spelt" was actually a word.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillI already agreed that definitions are required for communication, and since science requires communication, it requires definitions. But then one might as well say that scientists and language are part of science. So are computers and pencils. However, you seem to confuse definitions with statements about reality. Not quite the same thing. When the definition of 'planet' was changed, it made no difference whatsoever to our knowledge of reality.
So, I would say "definitions" of words are a part of Science, for the purpose of "identification" and "description".
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by tomtom232I think there may now be more than one 'joke' circulating; the latest one on you, it seems. In what way are you claiming "spelt" is an incorrect spelling, while claiming, on the other hand, that "spelled" is the correct spelling?
The joke was that I'm sure he knew what he was doing by spelling "spelled" wrong but I'm not quite sure he knew "spelt" was actually a word.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMFNow I am confused. Is 'spelled' spelt 'spelt' or is 'spelt' spelled 'spelled'? Or did someone spell one of them wrong?
I think there may now be more than one 'joke' circulating; the latest one on you, it seems. In what way are you claiming "spelt" is an incorrect spelling, while claiming, on the other hand, that "spelled" is the correct spelling?
Or are they both spelt correctly but are two different past tenses of the same word in different dialects?
08 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadRight. For example—
I already agreed that definitions are required for communication, and since science requires communication, it requires definitions. But then one might as well say that scientists and language are part of science. So are computers and pencils. However, you seem to confuse definitions with statements about reality. Not quite the same thing. When the definition of 'planet' was changed, it made no difference whatsoever to our knowledge of reality.
The standard epistemological definition of knowledge is “a justified, true belief”. In order for this definition to count as knowledge (either generally or in any particular case), it would itself have to be “a justified, true belief”. But that is not how we use definitions; we use definitions to identify what it is that we do, or do not, hold a justified belief about (including ostensive definition: pointing to something). We use definitions to identify what we are talking about. If someone were to say something like, “I believe in thatdefinition of X state of affairs”—they would really be saying no more than that that definition serves as an accurate, or adequate, identifier for the referenced state of affairs. The same for saying that a given definition is either “correct” or “incorrect”—or needs to be revised—according to norms of usage in a given domain of discourse.
09 Mar 12
1 edit
The Ad Non Americanum fallacy.
"Well you're not an American, so what do you know about [health, economics, education, defence, justice, welfare state, history ... etc. INSERT one or more here]..."
Variation:
"Well you don't have the problem we have with non-Caucasians over there in [INSERT the name of one or more European countries]... so you cannot comment on America..."
09 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. Both are correct. I wouldn't say it's a dialect issue really seeing as it is the same word, merely spelt differently, and pronounced the same - as opposed to either a different word or a different way of saying or using it. tomtom232 was just a little too quick to assume that the spelling variant he was familiar with was the only correct one.
Or are they both spelt correctly but are two different past tenses of the same word in different dialects?