—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere
You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change.
So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts).
So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary.
English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms.
Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation).
If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial l
—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change. So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts). So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary. English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms. Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation). If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉 -
“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial l
—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere
You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change.
So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts).
So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary.
English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms.
Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation).
If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-20 09:15:00 UTC
-
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is episte
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is epistemically superior to Truth. We spend all our time worrying about what’s true (cause it’s cheap) when the question is whether anything is false (which is expensive.) -
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is episte
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is epistemically superior to Truth. We spend all our time worrying about what’s true (cause it’s cheap) when the question is whether anything is false (which is expensive.) -
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is episte
Funny that it’s so obvious but that its so unintuitive: That Falsehood is epistemically superior to Truth. We spend all our time worrying about what’s true (cause it’s cheap) when the question is whether anything is false (which is expensive.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-16 11:56:00 UTC
-
Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. 
—“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized. -
Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. 
—“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized. -
PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIA
PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIALS WILL HELP YOU DISCOVER FALSEHOODS.
—“Incentives are not always easy to identify”—
I dunno. I can almost always identify them.
At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions.
I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience )
I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity)
And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity).
Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy)
So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy.
We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures.
We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference.
– Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption,
– Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution,
– Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings
Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite.
If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible.
Americans are improperly socialized.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-16 11:06:00 UTC
-
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.” —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend. I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done. So… Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.” Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them. What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”. And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible. And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally. I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good. And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good. 😉