Aphorisms and Distinctions

[Vermanubis]

It would be pointless because I have no interest in opposing anyone. Play me in tournament sometime, you'll win by asking me to lose.

Besides, you still didn't make things any less confusing. I see that he claimed something has to be social, because (at the minimum) communication requires a speaker and an audience. Somehow, this extended into "lol you're saying communication can only have a speaker and an audience", but that's where there's some huge disconnect I'm experiencing.

The disconnect is in the fact that communication does not require a "minimum" or "maximum" of speaker>audience relationship. Communication is not fettered to social implements, nor is such a relationship required for communication to be possible. By saying it <has> to be social, he's stating that the imperative necessity for communication to be possible is the "minimum" of a speaker and an audience.

Vermanubis, unquestionably intelligent, has, from OP to 10 pages later, tremendous difficulty in convincing anyone at all. I wonder why that is.

That is all.

I'm unfortunate enough that my love of analyzing arguments draws debates out even when it's clear that neither side is going to capitulate.

 

[Zankoku]

So are you then attacking his choice of "speaker" and "audience" rather than, say, "sender" and "receiver"?

 

[Queen]

I'm afraid I will have to recognize that this topic is beyond me at the moment. However, I think I'm beginning to see the crux of the matter.

It strikes me that what you've written has been important in feminism, particularly in making distinctions and then continuing to talk about them. A very simple one would be the difference between sex and gender and how these different qualities extend outward and inform our perceptions and beliefs.

Like I said earlier, I do not actually have a good grasp on this topic. This just struck me as relevant.

"Fünf," "Wu," "Cinco" and "Five" all mean the same thing,

And for the record, "wu" means a vast number of things. At the very least, include the tone (3) when you do this. Or the character (五).

 

[Vermanubis]

I'm afraid I will have to recognize that this topic is beyond me at the moment. However, I think I'm beginning to see the crux of the matter.

It strikes me that what you've written has been important in feminism, particularly in making distinctions and then continuing to talk about them. A very simple one would be the difference between sex and gender and how these different qualities extend outward and inform our perceptions and beliefs.

Like I said earlier, I do not actually have a good grasp on this topic. This just struck me as relevant.



And for the record, "wu" means a vast number of things. At the very least, include the tone (3) when you do this. Or the character (五).

That's absolutely relevant! I'm thrilled beyond belief that someone has finally begun to understand the topic at hand! A word is a signification of <something> and the more things contained within a word, the more the different relationships between the contained meanings of terms emerge new meaning and new significations.

And yes, Chinese is the exemplar of a contextual language, which lends itself to the thesis extremely well that compounded terms consisting of smaller linguistic particles can refer to completely different things than that which their atomic parts do. Wo feichang kuaile, ni zhidao.

 

[Zankoku]

what the hell is that comma even doing in that sentence

And I'm not sure kuài lè works in the context you just used. I would be more inclined to go with gāo xìng, which is closer to the "glad" or "grateful" expression you're going for, while kuài lè is often used in context of wishing someone a happy birthday or a merry holiday or good health.

 

[frotaz37]

I love how when somebody agrees with you, they "understand the topic" and when somebody disagrees, they "aren't thinking on your level".

 

[Vermanubis]

what the hell is that comma even doing in that sentence

And I'm not sure kuài lè works in the context you just used. I would be more inclined to go with gāo xìng, which is closer to the "glad" or "grateful" expression you're going for, while kuài lè is often used in context of wishing someone a happy birthday or a merry holiday or good health.

Gao Xing could work, but either satisfies the meaning. Kuaile could be argued as celebratory, Gaoxing as pleased. As for the comma, in Mandarin, a comma acts as a coordinating conjunction, much like "that." Not all languages use similar punctuation. In Chinese especially, this can be demonstrated by noun-function lists like "Shuxue, yuyan wo dou xi huan"; Math, Language I both like."

I love how when somebody agrees with you, they "understand the topic" and when somebody disagrees, they "aren't thinking on your level".

When someone agrees with me, they understand the topic because what I'm saying is a fact and can be proven (and I thank Queen for the inspiration that I lacked before to think of this) with Mandarin Chinese. For instance, the word rocket is: 火箭, or huojian, which literally means fire arrow. Is the word, therefore, the sum of its atomic parts, or is the relationship that the two words "fire" and "arrow" share that imparts the meaning "rocket"? If then, you can't justify that fire and arrow equate to a rocket, you concede that technical language is, in some cases, absolutely necessary. This demonstrates all of my arguments succinctly and definitively: words cannot always be expressed simply by other words, rather, a vast field of metalinguistic phenomenon such as context, syntax, deixis and index contribute to the meaning of the word just as much, if not more than the words themselves. Contained within technical terms are several of these individual "symbols/signs" which implicate other things, just as "fire arrow" implicates a rocket.

I cannot believe I didn't think of this earlier. THESE ARE THE EPIPHANIES I LIVE FOR!

 

[frotaz37]

Again, I'm pretty sure nobody has come in here saying that technical language is never useful. So again, you're persistent straw manning is getting in the way of your ability to address the concerns others have brought up with your views.

And again, you are displaying a complete lack of understanding about what a fact is.

I'm sure this is the part where you start comparing your ideas to the blueness of the sky.

 

[Vermanubis]

Again, I'm pretty sure nobody has come in here saying that technical language is never useful. So again, you're persistent straw manning is getting in the way of your ability to address the concerns others have brought up with your views.

And again, you are displaying a complete lack of understanding about what a fact is.

I'm sure this is the part where you start comparing your ideas to the blueness of the sky.

They never said it wasn't useful; they said it wasn't necessary. If we're speaking of strawmen, where did I ever say someone said it was useless rather than that they didn't believe it was necessary? I proved just now that some words cannot be adequately defined atomically and if nothing else, that implication has just as much expressive power as words themselves.

As for the fact part, what I said is a fact. Are you suggesting that a rocket is a flaming arrow? My proof demonstrated that a word is not the sum of its parts. Fire and arrow are the linguistic "parts" of the Mandarin word "rocket." So tell me then, since when have flaming arrows been rockets? Furthermore, this proof demonstrates that technical language is the exact same as such that a group of intensions and concepts in one group implies a new meaning or new referent.

You're terrified of being wrong in spite of your efforts to belittle me; it's clouding your reason.

 

[john!]

Again, I'm pretty sure nobody has come in here saying that technical language is never useful. So again, you're persistent straw manning is getting in the way of your ability to address the concerns others have brought up with your views.

has he accused anyone of thinking that technical language is never useful? i haven't seen him do that.

When someone agrees with me, they understand the topic because what I'm saying is a fact and can be proven (and I thank Queen for the inspiration that I lacked before to think of this) with Mandarin Chinese. For instance, the word rocket is: 火箭, or huojian, which literally means fire arrow. Is the word, therefore, the sum of its atomic parts, or is the relationship that the two words "fire" and "arrow" share that imparts the meaning "rocket"? If then, you can't justify that fire and arrow equate to a rocket, you concede that technical language is, in some cases, absolutely necessary. This demonstrates all of my arguments succinctly and definitively: words cannot always be expressed simply by other words, rather, a vast field of metalinguistic phenomenon such as context, syntax, deixis and index contribute to the meaning of the word just as much, if not more than the words themselves. Contained within technical terms are several of these individual "symbols/signs" which implicate other things, just as "fire arrow" implicates a rocket.

I cannot believe I didn't think of this earlier. THESE ARE THE EPIPHANIES I LIVE FOR!

huojian: the chinese word for rocket, derived from the chinese words meaning "fire" and "arrow".

there, i defined the word and its intension using simpler words.



regarding all communication being "social"... let's have a look at definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
"Communication is the activity of conveying meaningful information. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social
"The term Social refers to a characteristic of living organisms..."

sender = speaker and recipient = audience in all cases of communication between two organisms. it could be argued that the "communication" between non-living entities (e.g. a computer and a printer) is not social, but seeing as this topic is concerned with the meaning of words (which only sentient organisms can understand), those cases are not important to the discussion.

 

[Vermanubis]

huojian: the chinese word for rocket, derived from the chinese words meaning "fire" and "arrow".

there, i defined the word and its intension using simpler words.

That's not its definition. Also, please, stop using the word "intension"; you do not know what it means. The word rocket's intension is the actual "rocket"; not fire and an arrow. Those are extensional references. You are extending those concepts to the final concept: the rocket.

Reductio ad absurdum: A rocket is not a flaming arrow. It is, however, defined as a flaming arrow. Therefore, the conjugation of fire and arrow <denote> properties of a rocket that implicate it. Thus, the word "rocket" is not the sum of its atomic parts. The only defense against this is to conjecture that a rocket is indeed a literal flaming arrow.

regarding all communication being "social"... let's have a look at definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
"Communication is the activity of conveying meaningful information. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social
"The term Social refers to a characteristic of living organisms..."

sender = speaker and recipient = audience in all cases of communication between two organisms. it could be argued that the "communication" between non-living entities (e.g. a computer and a printer) is not social, but seeing as this topic is concerned with the meaning of words (which only sentient organisms can understand), those cases are not important to the discussion.

Don't even try it. You said it <has> to be social, and social refers exclusively to interpersonal communication. That alone incriminates you, let alone the thick contextual implications of "speaker" and "audience." And even though were are concerned with the topic of living entities, that does by no means change the nature of the claim and is just as important. Language is language; communication is communication. To boot, you neglected around 5 of my other paragraphs and... I think you need to give up the ghost.

 

[frotaz37]

I don't understand why this is so hard to get. Saying that technical terminology is necessary is NOT a fact.

It cannot be a fact because what is and what is not a technical term is completely subjective. Also, what is and what is not necessary is also completely subjective, because every person who uses language has a completely different goal when it comes to communicating their own thoughts.

It may be true for YOU.
But that doesn't make it fact, let alone an unarguable fact.

__________________________________________________

And none of this excuses the "fact" that you make every attempt to belittle people who try to disagree with you, in every single one of your responses. It's getting beyond tiresome and I don't know why you think that eloquent flaming is any different than belligerent flaming.

 

[Vermanubis]

I don't understand why this is so hard to get. Saying that technical terminology is necessary is NOT a fact.

Ah, but it is. To express certain ideas, it very much is, and I proved it. Unless you can prove that a rocket is a flaming arrow, then my proof is just that: proof.

It cannot be a fact because what is and what is not a technical term is completely subjective. Also, what is and what is not necessary is also completely subjective, because every person who uses language has a completely different goal when it comes to communicating their own thoughts.

This is a fallacious argument; necessity is not subjective given the premises. You're in essence saying that 2+2=8 depending on the goal of the speaker. Language is concrete, independent of "goals." For certain words to exist, they have to be comprised of smaller parts, and those smaller parts' interactions with each other to imply new meaning/intension. 2 2 does not equal 4. However, their relationship implies the sum of 4. In this case, the "+" is implied by how the two 2s interact.

It may be true for YOU.
But that doesn't make it fact, let alone an unarguable fact.

The color blue may be blue for you, but to me, it's red 'cause I want it to be.

And none of this excuses the "fact" that you make every attempt to belittle people who try to disagree with you

I don't think I've belittled anybody once, nor "eloquently" insulted them.

 

[frotaz37]

Ah, but it is. To express certain ideas, it very much is, and I proved it. Unless you can prove that a rocket is a flaming arrow, then my proof is just that: proof.

Ah, but it's not.

This is a fallacious argument; necessity is not subjective given the premises. You're in essence saying that 2+2=8 depending on the goal of the speaker. Language is concrete, independent of "goals." For certain words to exist, they have to be comprised of smaller parts, and those smaller parts' interactions with each other to imply new meaning/intension. 2 2 does not equal 4. However, their relationship implies the sum of 4. In this case, the "+" is implied by how the two 2s interact.

None of this addresses my point that what is and what is not a technical term is completely subjective. If you're trying to say that any word that is comprised of smaller parts is considered to be factually and unarguably technical, then I'm afraid you're wrong because all of language is basically just small parts of previous languages put together in new ways.

What you consider to be "technical terminology" might not be to others, therefore, it is subjective.
Therefore, what you are saying is not fact.

 

[Vermanubis]

Ah, but it's not.

The burden of proof is now on you. I provided a "demonstration" of my reasoning (assuming you'll deflect if I use the word "proof"), and you've yet to argue it directly.

None of this addresses my point that what is and what is not a technical term is completely subjective. If you're trying to say that any word that is comprised of smaller parts is considered to be technical, then I'm afraid you're wrong because all of language is basically just small parts of previous languages put together in new ways.

What you consider to be "technical terminology" might not be to others, therefore, it is subjective.

Unfortunately, the only way for you to be convinced at this point and not rationalize everything is for someone other than me to come in and point out to you just how silly all of that is.

 

[frotaz37]

In other words, you can't come up with a counterpoint.

I love how you're trying to deflect the burden of proof to me when you continually dodge responding to my points.

"Well clearly, you won't get it if I respond, so there's no point" is a really, really, really, really, really, really, really poor argument.

Let's make this easy:

Define "technical term".

 

[Vermanubis]

In other words, you can't come up with a counterpoint.

I love how you're trying to deflect the burden of proof to me when you continually dodge responding to my points.

"Well clearly, you won't get it if I respond, so there's no point" is a really, really, really, really, really, really, really poor argument.

Let's make this easy:

Define "technical term".

A term whose meaning is precise, or complex in that which it is multifaceted.

 

[frotaz37]

Okay then, do you think that a word such as "heterozygote" is technical terminology?

 

[john!]

That's not its definition. Also, please, stop using the word "intension"; you do not know what it means. The word rocket's intension is the actual "rocket"; not fire and an arrow. Those are extensional references. You are extending those concepts to the final concept: the rocket.

Reductio ad absurdum: A rocket is not a flaming arrow. It is, however, defined as a flaming arrow. Therefore, the conjugation of fire and arrow <denote> properties of a rocket that implicate it. Thus, the word "rocket" is not the sum of its atomic parts. The only defense against this is to conjecture that a rocket is indeed a literal flaming arrow.

no. saying the chinese define rocket as "flaming arrow" is like saying we define a millipede as "one thousand legs". the roots of a word aren't the same as the word's definition. sorry to ruin your excitement, but the fire rocket example is a terrible example.

Don't even try it. You said it <has> to be social, and social refers exclusively to interpersonal communication. That alone incriminates you, let alone the thick contextual implications of "speaker" and "audience." And even though were are concerned with the topic of living entities, that does by no means change the nature of the claim and is just as important. Language is language; communication is communication. To boot, you neglected around 5 of my other paragraphs and... I think you need to give up the ghost.

you're right, when i said that all communication is social i should have specified that social communication is the only kind we care about considering the context of the topic. still doesn't disprove my point.

you know your debate opponent is on his last legs when he tells you to "just give up now"...

 

[Vermanubis]

saying the chinese define rocket as "flaming arrow" is like saying we define a millipede as "one thousand legs". the roots of a word aren't the same as the word's definition. .

And why don't root words sum up to the definition? Because their relationship in the same word implies a different intension that can't necessarily otherwise be achieved by atoms alone.

I didn't expect you to prove my point for me, but hey, I'll take it!

you're right, when i said that all communication is social i should have specified that social communication is the only kind we care about considering the context of the topic. still doesn't disprove my point.

It doesn't disprove your point, but after 3 (4?) instances of self-admitted misspeaking, it begins to erode any credibility you have, as one begins to suspect that these "misspeakings" are a bit too convenient.

you know your debate opponent is on his last legs when he tells you to "just give up now"...

You know your debate opponent is on his last legs when his opponent tells him he's on his last legs. See where this is going?

 

[john!]

And why don't root words sum up to the definition? Because their relationship in the same word implies a different intension that can't necessarily otherwise be achieved by atoms alone.

I didn't expect you to prove my point for me, but hey, I'll take it!

the relationship between root words is part of the word's definition.

It doesn't disprove your point, but after 3 (4?) instances of self-admitted misspeaking, it begins to erode any credibility you have, as one begins to suspect that these "misspeakings" are a bit too convenient.

i only misspoke once. other instances of "misspeaking" were probably your failure to understand what i was saying. care to point them out?

and lack of credibility doesn't detract from a person's argument; that's a fallacy.

 

[frotaz37]

I still want to know if heterozygote is something you would consider to be complex technical terminology.

 

[Vermanubis]

the relationship between root words is part of the word's definition.

That's well and good, but not the point. The relationship is the very thing that tells us that two words alone do not always complete a meaningful concept. The underlined is once again a shot in the foot, contradicting your previously-held argument that words were sums of their atomic parts. You've now twice sequentially admitted that two word's relationships bear significance in signifying a concept, such a turning "milli" and "pede" into a meaningful reference to an insect, or "fire" and "arrow" implying a rocket.

i only misspoke once. other instances of "misspeaking" were probably your failure to understand what i was saying. care to point them out?

Please don't play the "you just misunderstood me" game. In a debate, it's wise to always assume your opponent won't guess these nebulous contextual implications. Anyway:

Improper conception of inductive reasoning.

Incorrect statement about communication having to be social. Any attempt to refute this notion is easily countered by the fact that you said "what other kind of communication is there?"

A general history of contradictory positions, as seen above.

And an implication of the word "full" which you yourself admitted was a folly.

Just to name a few.

and lack of credibility doesn't detract from a person's argument; that's a fallacy.

It doesn't invalid their argument, but I never said it did; I just said it made you look quite a bit like you weren't apt to be arguing the topic if you didn't know what paramount words meant (such as intension, which by saying you defined, clearly demonstrate an incorrect conception of)

 

[frotaz37]

Do you understand that constantly pointing out that you don't think a person is apt to be arguing with you is completely unnecessary? It's 100% irrelevant, especially after you say it 10 times. How do you not see that this is flaming? Bringing it up serves no other purpose except to insult the person it's directed at.

And do you think heterozygote is a good example of what you consider to be technical terminology or not?

 

[Vermanubis]

Do you understand that constantly pointing out that you don't think a person is apt to be arguing with you is completely unnecessary? It's 100% irrelevant, especially after you say it 10 times. How do you not see that this is flaming? Bringing it up serves no other purpose except to insult the person it's directed at.

And do you think heterozygote is a good example of what you consider to be technical terminology or not?

There's a difference between insulting someone, and respectfully pointing something out. If I were to approach a person and tell them that I didn't think they were ready for their driving test, that's not an insult. If I told them they suck at driving, that would be.

As for heterozygote, I think it's a really cool word with a neat vowel/consonant sequence.

 

[frotaz37]

Are you seriously dodging a simple yes or no question?

Heterozygote. Do you think it's a technical term?

Yes or no?

 

[john!]

That's well and good, but not the point. The relationship is the very thing that tells us that two words alone do not always complete a meaningful concept. The underlined is once again a shot in the foot, contradicting your previously-held argument that words were sums of their atomic parts. You've now twice sequentially admitted that two word's relationships bear significance in signifying a concept, such a turning "milli" and "pede" into a meaningful reference to an insect, or "fire" and "arrow" implying a rocket.

have you forgotten your original argument? your original argument was that parts of a word's meaning cannot be expressed using simpler terms. you can define the roots using simpler terms, and you can define the relationship using simpler terms. never once did i say that a word can be defined by only its roots.

Please don't play the "you just misunderstood me" game. In a debate, it's wise to always assume your opponent won't guess these nebulous contextual implications. Anyway:

Improper conception of inductive reasoning.

Incorrect statement about communication having to be social. Any attempt to refute this notion is easily countered by the fact that you said "what other kind of communication is there?"

A general history of contradictory positions, as seen above.

And an implication of the word "full" which you yourself admitted was a folly.

Just to name a few.

i refuted all of those except the social one, and i've already shown that it doesn't have any bearing on the truth of my argument.

who is the better debater: the one who is willing to admit his mistake yet still retains a strong argument (social), or the one who tries to cover up his mistake by attacking the opponent's inexperience (sol)? pathetic.

 

[Vermanubis]

have you forgotten your original argument? your original argument was that parts of a word's meaning cannot be expressed using simpler terms. you can define the roots using simpler terms, and you can define the relationship using simpler terms.

Yes, and if one tries to define this "relationship" between two words, they will come across a severe intensional conflict, as trying to explicitly detail the vast network of implications contained in a molecular pairing cannot achieve the unique intension that a marriage can. Again, you're not acknowledging the metalinguistic phenomena that govern meaning. Thus we are left at defining root words, who, on their own, cannot imply a new concept outside of themselves.

never once did i say that a word can be defined by only its roots.

a word is the sum of its atomic parts

Can't wait to see the semantics on this one.

i refuted all of those except the social one, and i've already shown that it doesn't have any bearing on the truth of my argument.

You refuted them by saying you misspoke, or that it was "context" that made it unclear. "I just misunderstood" or "I was using a different version of the word" is a pretty wispy defense.

who is the better debater: the one who is willing to admit his mistake yet still retains a strong argument (social), or the one who tries to cover up his mistake by attacking the opponent's inexperience (sol)? pathetic.

I'm sorry I'm a pathetic debater.

 

[frotaz37]

I think it's funny that you have such an issue with clarifying what you consider to be a technical term.
If you say that technical terminology is factually necessary, why would you ignore the person asking you to define what you consider to be technical terminology?

I even provided an example with a word I thought might be an example of a word you consider to be complex technical terminology. So again I'll ask, do you think heterozygote is a good example of complex technical terminology? If not, what is? Arrow? Fire? Rocket? Come on dude.

 

[john!]

Yes, and if one tries to define this "relationship" between two words, they will come across a severe intensional conflict, as trying to explicitly detail the vast network of implications contained in a molecular pairing cannot achieve the unique intension that a marriage can.

i don't see why you couldn't. what is so special about intension that you think it transcends language? why can't i use language to tell you a word's intension? haven't you done that exact thing in this thread?

Can't wait to see the semantics on this one.

i believe that the intension of a word can be reduced to atomic parts, just as the literal definition and roots of a word can be reduced to atomic parts. both categories are a part of the word's meaning.

 

[Vermanubis]

i don't see why you couldn't. what is so special about intension that you think it transcends language? why can't i use language to tell you a word's intension? haven't you done that exact thing in this thread?

I don't think; I know. Intension transcends language because intension is <identity>. A tree is not the word by which it is referred to. Identity becomes possible when two things combine to become one. A mess of definitions using inherently non-rigorous words and syntaxes cannot form a unique intension that a single object can. As stated before, there is a difference between equivalence and identity. Equivalence is principal similarity--identity is immutable actuality.

i believe that the intension of a word can be reduced to atomic parts, just as the literal definition and roots of a word can be reduced to atomic parts. both categories are a part of the word's meaning.

This is a blatant escapism. "A word is the sum of its atomic parts" can only reasonably go in so many directions. You are in blatant contradiction of your original position. Your position was that any word can be assembled from simpler terms and context made it even clearer, as this was before intension was mentioned (I believe), that you were referring to words alone. You've contradicted yourself several times now and with each time I catch you, you have an excuse, or a sudden case of epanorthosis: "well, I actually meant this."

 

[frotaz37]

Still waiting on that example of complex technical terminology.

It's pretty essential to your arguments.

 

[Vermanubis]

Still waiting on that example of complex technical terminology.

It's pretty essential to your arguments.

Prepare for a long wait.

 

[frotaz37]

Prepare for a long wait.

What so, you refuse to define the concepts that are in essence the entire subject of your ideas?

You are not making any sense at all.

 

[john!]

I don't think; I know. Intension transcends language because intension is <identity>. A tree is not the word by which it is referred to. Identity becomes possible when two things combine to become one. A mess of definitions using inherently non-rigorous words and syntaxes cannot form a unique intension that a single object can. As stated before, there is a difference between equivalence and identity. Equivalence is principal similarity--identity is immutable actuality.

so why does identity transcend language? if i say every attribute of an entity, have i not said its identity?

and i don't see how simpler terms are "non-rigorous", if they are what you were referring to. calling them a "mess" doesn't prove anything.

This is a blatant escapism. "A word is the sum of its atomic parts" can only reasonably go in so many directions. You are in blatant contradiction of your original position. Your position was that any word can be assembled from simpler terms and context made it even clearer, as this was before intension was mentioned (I believe), that you were referring to words alone. You've contradicted yourself several times now and with each time I catch you, you have an excuse, or a sudden case of epanorthosis: "well, I actually meant this."

how is it against my original position to say that intension can be expressed using simpler terms? or to say that these simpler terms are part of a word's atomic parts?

 

[Vinylic.]

Woah. Now it gets interesting here.

 

[Vermanubis]

so why does identity transcend language? if i say every attribute of an entity, have i not said its identity?

Nope. Because language is not the actual thing to which is is referring. Proof by demonstration: define an apple. Define an apple in such a way that it could suffice for the word "apple" itself and is unmistakably an apple. Hint: you can't. You'll list of all of its properties, but none of which are the actual apple itself. Apple is the only intensional identity of apple, and as terms grow in complexity, but succinctness and that intensional specificity is necessary, as the word cannot be fully recreated. Even at an arbitrary level this is evident with math equations being equivalent, but not identical. Genetic algorithms work the same way. The strive to find the most accurate solution to a problem with varying degrees of rigor and satisfiability.

Something is not the sum of its properties, rather, a concept of a discrete entity emergent from the relationship that all of those properties create. Should you attempt to list those singular, non-discrete properties, you will not be able to indicate "an aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide-eating organism" in the same way you could if you said "tree". No word is fully reducible to other words, much less multifaceted concepts like "entropy" or "temporal asymmetry." Aisight pointed out earlier that the Mandarin words "Gao xing" and "Kuai le" are not equivalent, and only marginally satisfy an expression depending on the intention of the speaker or communicator, despite both having a general meaning of "happy."

and i don't see how simpler terms are "non-rigorous", if they are what you were referring to. calling them a "mess" doesn't prove anything.

Saying that simpler terms are rigorous doesn't prove anything. (See where that kind of sophomoric reasoning goes?) See above for actual demonstrative reasoning (something of which you give none, despite you being burdened with it)

how is it against my original position to say that intension can be expressed using simpler terms? or to say that these simpler terms are part of a word's atomic parts?

...Really? I'll lay it plain. Before the concept of intension was even brought up, you said that words were the sum of their atomic parts, as seen. You then went on to say that implication/relationship could alter a word's meaning, which is contradictory to the notion of a word being summed up by its atomic parts, as relationship is not an atomic part. The topic thickened beyond your scope of knowledge, as evidenced by you repeatedly changed your definitions and positions as new information was provided to keep up with the image of "superior intellect" you purported at the foot of the debate.

You've been unable to give sound reasoning, and all I've gotten are "How?"s and "That doesn't prove anything"s. Not even my sadistic love of analyzing arguments can extend a debate's viability that far.

 

[john!]

Nope. Because language is not the actual thing to which is is referring. Proof by demonstration: define an apple. Define an apple in such a way that it could suffice for the word "apple" itself and is unmistakably an apple. Hint: you can't. You'll list of all of its properties, but none of which are the actual apple itself. Apple is the only intensional identity of apple, and as terms grow in complexity, but succinctness and that intensional specificity is necessary, as the word cannot be fully recreated. Even at an arbitrary level this is evident with math equations being equivalent, but not identical. Genetic algorithms work the same way. The strive to find the most accurate solution to a problem with varying degrees of rigor and satisfiability.

you still haven't told me what part of the apple couldn't be defined using other words. its identity? if i tell you every attribute of an apple, have i not identified it completely?

complex terms can provide succinctness, but in theory, simpler terms could do the same.

Something is not the sum of its properties, rather, a concept of a discrete entity emergent from the relationship that all of those properties create. Should you attempt to list those singular, non-discrete properties, you will not be able to indicate "an aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide-eating organism" in the same way you could if you said "tree". No word is fully reducible to other words, much less multifaceted concepts like "entropy" or "temporal asymmetry." Aisight pointed out earlier that the Mandarin words "Gao xing" and "Kuai le" are not equivalent, and only marginally satisfy an expression depending on the intention of the speaker or communicator, despite both having a general meaning of "happy."

GENERAL meaning? really? that's pretty vague for someone who demands so much precision in his language.

"gao xing" and "kuai le" do not have the same EXACT meaning.

if a discrete entity emerges from the entity's relationships, then i can define an tree like so:

"a discrete entity that emerges from the relationships of the following properties: aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide-eating..." etc.

does that not accurately identify the entity "tree"? or am i just using those damn semantics too much again?

Saying that simpler terms are rigorous doesn't prove anything. (See where that kind of sophomoric reasoning goes?) See above for actual demonstrative reasoning (something of which you give none, despite you being burdened with it)

we're both burdened with it. you don't get off scot-free either.

...Really? I'll lay it plain. Before the concept of intension was even brought up, you said that words were the sum of their atomic parts, as seen. You then went on to say that implication/relationship could alter a word's meaning, which is contradictory to the notion of a word being summed up by its atomic parts, as relationship is not an atomic part. The topic thickened beyond your scope of knowledge, as evidenced by you repeatedly changed your definitions and positions as new information was provided to keep up with the image of "superior intellect" you purported at the foot of the debate.

You've been unable to give sound reasoning, and all I've gotten are "How?"s and "That doesn't prove anything"s. Not even my sadistic love of analyzing arguments can extend a debate's viability that far.

the reason you think that the relationship is not an atomic part of a word is because you've defined it that way. i view relationships as within the scope of a word's set of atomic parts, because they are part of the word's meaning. do you not agree with this? how do you, personally, define an "atomic part"?

 

[Sucumbio]

This topic got kinda gay. I don't mean to disparage, but it's not as if the OP is saying anything -that- outlandish.

I feel a separate post would be more clean than editing it into the above post.

To unequivocally restate myself: Technical terminology is a wonderful thing in the right contexts. In certain contexts, yes, it isn't necessary. However, in any discipline that involves theory, or concepts that cannot be directly observed or easily duplicated, technical terminology opens up new worlds.

1. It improves cognition. Technical terms condense large amounts of information into one elegant utterance.

2. It is necessary for concretizing your understanding of something. A definition denotes an acknowledgment of the concept's properties, and by acknowledging the properties, you can manipulate the information multiple ways and approach even more atomic concepts from different angles. In short, a definition labels the essence of something, and the ability to apprehend form and principle of that thing allows the information to become useful. If you have a certain savior-faire about you, you know how to use language intuitively, yet you could not construct your own language because your knowledge of the properties of language are null. This is explicit definition--rigor. An example is English. English is applied linguistics. An English major knows everything about English, but may not know anything about the underpinnings of language formation and semiotics.

3. I do not think that terminological simplification is evil or reprehensible, but I do think it is counterproductive. Given the nature of natural language, "plain" language is prone to misinterpretation. Technical terminology is the bastion of communication, because it remains sacrosanct and "untouched". It invokes that which plain language doesn't/can't.

4. Least of all, but still significant, it allows one to express their thoughts and detect sophistical errors in reasoning.

I mean, really, what's so hard to grasp about this concept? I feel as if the opposition to this view either got really bad grades in English class or was one of those students who balked every time a teacher corrected them for not using the "right" word. Words are important. Using the right word is more important. This isn't like the folding towel...

"What's the right way to fold a towel?"

That question is a trick question, because there isn't really any right way to fold a towel, despite the opinions of those who may fold it one way or another.

Technical terms are valuable. You can talk about how elements bond, but eventually you'll need to understand the words "valence," "orbital," etc. Heck, you even need to understand the -contextual- definition of BOND. Sure we can dumb the concept of bonding down to a simple idea "it's like gluing a jigsaw puzzle together" but wtf? What use would that have to a chemist? Language requires things to be succinct in order to be best successful in communicating. A chemist isn't going to say "glued jigsaw pieces" every time they want to refer to a bonded pair.

Also, which question was it?

Ah yes. Well while I was gone for a few days, but hopefully the gears haven't rotated too much to address my question:

In essence, the question (which just about all English majors ask themselves at one time or another, myself not excluded) is what course of action can we as a people take in order to ensure that the importance of language, word use, etc. doesn't fall on deaf ears? What implications does this make about people as a whole... it's too much to assume -everyone- can understand and comprehend technical language, people's vocabularies are like any other practiced form... and not everyone's cut out to be a linguist, or a subjects expert. Do they just get remanded to a group of idiots? We have a divide already in the public school system and beyond.

 

[frotaz37]

He has not shown how knowing and using a certain type of word improves cognition, nor has he shown that it's necessary for understanding concepts.

The only thing outlandish about his views are that he refuses to acknowledge that they are views, and instead is claiming that they are unarguable facts that don't need to be backed up with anything but vague mathematical proofs.

I mean how are we supposed to discuss whether or not technical terms are necessary if he's not going to give an example of something he considers a technical term? He refuses to solidify his own points with simple things like examples, and it's getting beyond ridiculous at this point.

He's basically insisting on debating until he gets backed into a corner because he's unable to answer simple questions about his views, while trying to play if off like he's so far above the person asking that they don't even warrant acknowledgment in the conversation.

In other words, he is scared of being proved wrong.