The universe operates on very simple rules, but does a great deal with those very simple rules. Humans, as part of that universe, operate on very simple rules, but we do a great deal with those very simple rules. There is nothing incomprehensible. It’s just eliminating all the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that we are either born with or accumulate.
Was language invented to lie? Language was clearly not invented to tell the truth or it wouldn’t be nearly impossible for us to do so without so much effort. Instead, language merely evolved and like violence can be put to moral or immoral use.
Theme: Science
-
“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
-
“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. 😉 -
Studies have shown that some musical pieces may preferentially activate reward c
Studies have shown that some musical pieces may preferentially activate reward centers in the brain. Less is known, however, about the structural aspects of music that are associated with this activation. Based on the music cognition literature, we propose … -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 08:49:00 UTC
-
Studies have shown that some musical pieces may preferentially activate reward c
Studies have shown that some musical pieces may preferentially activate reward centers in the brain. Less is known, however, about the structural aspects of music that are associated with this activation. Based on the music cognition literature, we propose … -
Science: Applied Operational Epistemology
by John Dow I think it’s more accurate to say that you’re an operational epistemologist, and you consider pretty much all divergent epistemological techniques to have failed to achieve functional coherence to the degree of operationalism – and therefore you define ‘science’ as applied operational epistemology. (genius. i wish i’d said that) -
SCIENCE: APPLIED OPERATIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY by Joel Davis I think it’s more accura
SCIENCE: APPLIED OPERATIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY
by Joel Davis
I think it’s more accurate to say that you’re an operational epistemologist, and you consider pretty much all divergent epistemological techniques to have failed to achieve functional coherence to the degree of operationalism – and therefore you define ‘science’ as applied operational epistemology.
(genius. i wish i’d said that)
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 08:29:00 UTC
-
Science: Applied Operational Epistemology
by John Dow I think it’s more accurate to say that you’re an operational epistemologist, and you consider pretty much all divergent epistemological techniques to have failed to achieve functional coherence to the degree of operationalism – and therefore you define ‘science’ as applied operational epistemology. (genius. i wish i’d said that)