Literal isn’t Lazy

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Margot

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]

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

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]

Originally Posted by Michael

When the tool used is a human being.

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

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Margot

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

Okay, I'm out of this thread now.

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

[WFCY]

Originally Posted by Michael

Okay, I'm out of this thread now.

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

lol, yeah, mine too. by now.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by WFCY

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]

Originally Posted by Michael

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]

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

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]

Originally Posted by Margot

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

Mayhap this thread has lost it's bearings ?

[Non Sequitur]

Originally Posted by WFCY

(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.