What's new
By:

The Morman hypothetical

And around and around we go.

It's like people arguing Mormonism is a cult and not a religion and then all discussion is about what a cult is.
 
On the other hand, Dark, there's a point where, just to have any semblance of comprehensibility, ya gotta ax what some other guy even means. Like, for example, when you flatly stated that no atheist would ever make the claim that God does not exist, I have to wonder if we're even in the same ballpark when tryin to "play ball."

In other words, I blame it all on you.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Who cares about what?
Click to expand...

Who cares about lengthy discussions about what a given word, such as "cult," means. If you think a cult implies certain things, and if you think those things are embodied in a certain group, then you don't have to rely on the word "cult" to "completely sum up" what you intend to say. Just say what you mean, and leave the definitions to others.

In my experience, notwithstanding dictionaries or any other "authoritative" reference, most people will simply define words to mean what they want them to mean.

P.S. Which is OK, to an extent, but, next thing you know, they are claimin that their personal definition is the one and ONLY TRUE objective meaning and that anyone disagreeing is a fool. Then the stupid semantic arguing starts--all a waste of time.
 
believe_2.jpg
 
Hopper said:
In my experience, notwithstanding dictionaries or any other "authoritative" reference, most people will simply define words to mean what they want them to mean.

P.S. Which is OK, to an extent, but, next thing you know, they are claimin that their personal definition is the one and ONLY TRUE objective meaning and that anyone disagreeing is a fool. Then the stupid semantic arguing starts--all a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Using the "common" meaning for a word to challenge someone's meaning gets you nowhere. Would you complain to a scientist that he isn't using the common use of the word, "theory?"
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Using the "common" meaning for a word to challenge someone's meaning gets you nowhere. Would you complain to a scientist that he isn't using the common use of the word, "theory?"
Click to expand...

I would actually expect a scientist to have a more refined sense of what a "theory" is than non-scientific people. Unfortunately, those expectations are often disappointed.
 
Mo, I know you. You just posted that picture of the guy at the blackboard cause ya thinks he cute, dincha?
 
Hopper said:
I would actually expect a scientist to have a more refined sense of what a "theory" is than non-scientific people. Unfortunately, those expectations are often disappointed.
Click to expand...

No, not refined, a definition that is different from what the common definition is.

2 : abstract thought : speculation

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


synonyms see hypothesis

These three common definitions fly in the face of how scientists use "theory."
 
Darkwing Duck said:
These three common definitions fly in the face of how scientists use "theory."
Click to expand...

Well, a couple of observations, Dark:

1. A "scientific theory" is a particular form of theory, so if that's the kinda theory you wanna refer to, you should say so.

2. Probably very few words have one, and only one, meaning. It doesn't mean that any of the different meanings are "wrong."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top