If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:00:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: In message , you cite scripture instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation): When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this. You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an English word. It's about as meaninful. !! The first dictionaries *were* descriptions of the meanings of foreign words. Are you even aware what a modern dictionary is and how it's compiled? Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon." It's not reasonable. Rob |
#582
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Perkins wrote:
[...] Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon." It's not reasonable. Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable. However, you used one in place of a dictionary. That is not a reasonable act, any more than citing a Spanish dictionary would be for claiming proper use of English words would be so. What point is there in having a discussion with a person where that person feels free to use unreasonable sources for citation? If we cannot even agree upon something as basic as the lexicon, discussion isn't even truly possible. You can make claims like "experiments require faith", and never even "know" (or "care", more likely) that you're using at least one word in a grossly nonstandard way. In your language, perhaps you're even correct. But I'm not using your language. I'm using English. It would be akin to someone saying "the rudder turns the airplane". Many here would leap to correct this. But if the poster of such a statement cited different definitions for either "rudder" (those things on the trailing edge of the wings outboard of the flaps) or "turn" (rotate around an axis) or "airplane" (a waterbound vehicle), then the statement would be correct in the speaker's lexicon. But that wouldn't be English. Of course, you can define "English" however you want in your own lexicon. That's just how pointless such a discussion becomes. - Andrew |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:17:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable. And, here's where I get off the ride. If I can't explain my point of view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it. Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew. And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail" strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts. Rob |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Perkins wrote:
And, here's where I get off the ride. You can get yourself off whereever you like. If I can't explain my point of view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it. We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals. Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol. Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew. Any fallacies you think you see are the result of the difference between our two languages. I'm using English. You're using something else. As I wrote before, as long as we're not using the same language, communication isn't possible. And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail" strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts. The goalposts are where they've always been. You're just trying to redefine the language - and therefore the discussion - and are perturbed about being denied this sophistic ploy. I don't really see that I can add anything more to this game - until/unless you submit to the use of English - and so you'll just have to play with yourself. - Andrew |
#585
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Rob Perkins wrote: And, here's where I get off the ride. You can get yourself off whereever you like. Y'know, sexual innuendo doesn't really help win arguments. We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals. Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol. You've got to be kidding. Look, at times I've been entertained doing epistemology with novices; it can be fun and usually a lurker writes to me thanking me for the insights. But I'm just not interested this time, it's the holiday season and I've got to get my day job accomplished sometime. One more time, then, as denouement: http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,835-1,00.html ....defines "faith" in my context. If you want to have a protracted conversation with someone, take it to soc.religion.mormon or something. I'm done! plonk Rob |
#586
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe that is why we aren't using it anymore.
Mike Z "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Martin, Just check what is printed on your money. And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |