Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
654
dwise1 writes:
Argumentum ad dictionario is one of the stupidest fallacies committed by evil creationist trolls.
Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it?
The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it?
Wow! So you have never learned any kind of trade or profession or held any kind of a job? You have only ever spent time on the streets and never in school? You are really so intellectually impoverished? Well, you have only yourself to blame.
Every single profession or trade or field of study has its own vocabulary, which outsiders call jargon:
quoteJargon is the specialized terminology associated with a particular field or area of activity. Jargon is normally employed in a particular communicative context and may not be well understood outside that context. The context is usually a particular occupation (that is, a certain trade, profession, vernacular or academic field), but any ingroup can have jargon. The main trait that distinguishes jargon from the rest of a language is special vocabulary—including some words specific to it and often different senses or meanings of words, that outgroups would tend to take in another sense—therefore misunderstanding that communication attempt. Jargon is sometimes understood as a form of technical slang and then distinguished from the official terminology used in a particular field of activity.
I've been through public school, college, university, military tech school, and military classroom training. Usually the very first lecture consists of us being given the terminology that we are going to use and the meanings of those terms within the context of the class.
Dictionaries are of limited use because they normally only give common general-population definitions, though for some words they will refer to a specialized field explicitly (and almost never for the field that you need). So using general definitions for specialized terminology is a very grave offense indeed! For that matter, one of the most common forms of creationist misquoting of scientific sources directly employ semantic shifting, a kind of bait-and-switch (always part of a con or swindle) wherein they quote the words from a scientific source, but then substitute different meanings for those words, usually general usage, thus completely changing the meaning of the quoted text. But then we both know that creationists are evil; this is just one way of many ways in which you creationists practice your evil.
For the edification of other members and of visitors reading this, using a foreign language dictionary to find their word for an English word is like waltzing through a minefield. For example, look up the German word for "round", which in English has many possible meanings. I have collected multiple language dictionaries between various languages that I know so that I can cross-reference words; eg, I'll look up a French word from English, but then I go to my Deutsch-Französisch Langenscheidt, or even to the French-Spanish dictionary I snuck out during the divorce, to verify that I hopefully chose the right word.
For example, on a now-extinct C programming forum I used to participate in, a programmer from Portugal asked us how to work with lights in C. Nobody had any clue what he could be talking about, but, even though I don't know Portuguese, I had a hunch from Spanish, plus he had included something that hinted him trying to do multithreaded or multiprocessing programming. In multithreading, you have separate independent processes, threads of execution, which share common resources such as memory. To keep them from clobbering each other's work, they use a signaling system to let the other threads know to leave a resource (eg, a particular memory location) alone until they get the signal that they can proceed with it. That's called synchronization and one tool is semaphores. In Spanish, the word for a traffic signal is semáforo and a quick visit to the Portuguese Wikipedia confirmed that Portuguese uses the same word. So he had looked up semáforo in his Portuguese-English dictionary and it though he was talking about "traffic lights" so it told him the English word would be "lights" (eg, "Turn left at the second light."). I explained his error to him ("The dictionary is not your friend!", same as you shouldn't do what those voices in your head tell you because they're not your friend) and gave him the correct English word, "semaphore". I also advised him to look up the subject matter in his own language on Wikipedia and then switch to the English version, which would also teach him the specialized vocabulary of that subject.
Let me repeat that for those who work in more than one language (as opposed to those like Sludge who don't even know one): Wikipedia is an excellent tool for learning the specialized terminology (AKA "jargon") of a particular field. Look it up in Wikipedia, then switch to the target language which will be written using that language's version of the jargon.
In Sludge's case, he will continue to refuse to learn anything, so Marcus Lycus' beratement of an employee for not trying to improve himself apply to him:
quoteBut you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
DWise1 writes:
The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Oh, the irony!
You willfully stupid complete idiot!
Specialists construct their own specialized vocabularies in order to facilitate clear and unambiguous communication among themselves. No attempts to change reality, but rather to enable themselves to better describe reality.
Rather it is you self-admittedly evil creationists who twist and distort the meaning of words in order to generate confusion and to practice deception.
And you're so stupid that you think it's the other way around? Ha!
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Language is one of the most fluid and multi-faceted tools which we have evolved - and it continues to evolve over time.
The word "set" is listed as having 430 different meanings in the 1989 edition of the Oxford English dictionary. It's the same three letters, but is used differently in different contexts. The same is true of other words - including knowledge and proof. What we are doing is pointing out to you the specific meanings of and contexts in which knowledge, proof, evidence, falsifiability and tentativity are used in science. You're just picking different contexts and seeking to apply those contexts to science (a field about which you clearly know nothing).
Let's take proof. The word is used differently in law courts and mathematics. In mathematics, it is used to demonstrate a mathematical and logical certainty which cannot be refuted. In law courts, it just means that you've got sufficient evidence to convince a jury. (If, in a legal context, it meant the logical certainty which the word bears in mathematics, then we'd never have successful appeals or overturned verdicts or miscarriages of justice, would we - and yet we do).
Words have multiple meanings - not just the one's ferreted away in your conman's playbook.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Despite your certainty that scientists don't know what they think they know in what you deem the proper sense of the word know, scientific progress continues unchecked. Apparently scientists have few problems understanding each other.
Words are vehicles for communicating meaning. That's why brevity and clarity are opposing forces. You've now had many hundreds of words of explanation directed toward you, but what it all means is still lost on you, not because the explanations were deficient, but because it is important to you to not understand.
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
In future, whenever I hear a scientist claiming to "know" something, I will bear in mind that what he really means is, "I don't actually know ... but I'm pretty sure".
To "know" means to be pretty sure. Science has to be careful to never be too sure of anything. The classic example is Newtonian mechanics, which works pretty well most of the time. But we now know that quantum mechanics works better in some situations. If we used your concept of "knowing", we would never have gotten past Newton.
Dredge writes:
I'm not aware of any dictionary that supports the "scientific definition" of that word.
There are a lot of things you're unaware of. You work too hard at being unaware.
Dredge writes:
And I suppose it's safe to assume that the scientific interpretation of "knowledge" is as misleading and unorthodox as their use of "know".
It is neither misleading nor unorthodox. Understanding the word "know" is directly linked to understanding the word "knowledge". If you made more of an effort to understand and wasted less time pontificating, you wouldn't be such a dimwit.
Dredge writes:
I hope the law courts are aware that if a scientist takes the stand and says "I know the defendent stole my car", what he really means is, "I'm pretty sure the defendent stole my car".
The law courts would work a lot better if they used a more practical meaning of "I know" and "I saw". A lot of people have been unjustly convicted because somebody "definitely saw" something - when they actually meant they were "pretty sure" of what they saw.
"Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
ringo writes:
The law courts would work a lot better if they used a more practical meaning of "I know" and "I saw". A lot of people have been unjustly convicted because somebody "definitely saw" something - when they actually meant they were "pretty sure" of what they saw.
I'm off-topic here, but I'm again reminded of this selective attention video that must be part of any examination of the reliability of eyewitness testimony:
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
627
Dredge writes:
I invite you to prove me wrong by providing an example of how the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor has contribted to the treatment of disease.
ringo writes:
Insulin from cows and pigs. Why would their insulin work in us if we were not all related?
Non sequitur. The insulin will work in humans regardless of whether anyone thinks we're "related" to cows and pigs or not. The theory of universal common descent is therefore irrelevant to insulin's efficacy.
Will the insulin stop working if it's administered or used by a YEC?
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
ringo writes:
French has separate words for knowing something (savoir) and knowing somebody (connaitre).
I was thinking about the jargon of believers and where they picked it up.
To clarify, "believers" need not be YEC Creationists nor do they need to be familiar with the scientific method, though it is helpful.
I settled on Vine's Dictionary of Biblical Words and further elaboration from Strongs Concordance. It may be enlightening to see where the original Greek and Hebrew defines the jargon.
Strongs writes:
TO KNOW A. Verb.
nakar OT:5234, "to know, regard, recognize, pay attention to, be acquainted with." This verb, which is found in both ancient and modern Hebrew, occurs approximately 50 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. The first time is in Gen 27:23: "...he did not recognize him" (RSV). The basic meaning of the term is a physical apprehension, whether through sight, touch, or hearing. Darkness sometimes makes recognition impossible Ruth 3:14. People are often "recognized" by their voices Judg 18:3. Nakar sometimes has the meaning "pay attention to," a special kind of recognition: "Blessed be the man who took notice of [KJV, "took knowledge of"] you" Ruth 2:19, RSV.
This verb can mean "to be acquainted with," a kind of intellectual awareness: "...neither shall his place know him anymore" Job 7:10; cf. Ps 103:16. The sense of" to distinguish" is seen in Ezra 3:13: "...the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people...." yada` OT:3045, "to know." This verb occurs in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Arabic (infrequently), biblical Aramaic, and in Hebrew in all periods. This verb occurs about 1,040 times (995 in Hebrew and 47 in Aramaic) in the Bible.
Essentially yada` means: (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing. The first sense appears in Gen 8:11, where Noah "knew" the waters had abated as a result of seeing the freshly picked olive leaf in the dove's mouth; he "knew" it after observing and thinking about what he had seen. He did not actually see or experience the abatement himself.
In contrast to this knowing through reflection is the knowing which comes through experience with the senses, by investigation and proving, by reflection and consideration (firsthand knowing). Consequently yada` is used in synonymous parallelism with "hear" Ex 3:7, "see" Gen 18:21, and "perceive, see" Job 28:7. Joseph told his brothers that were they to leave one of their number with him in Egypt then he would "know," by experience, that they were honest men Gen 42:33. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree whose fruit if eaten would give them the experience of evil and, therefore, the knowledge of both good and evil. Somewhat characteristically the heart plays an important role in knowing. Because they experienced the sustaining presence of God during the wilderness wandering, the Israelites "knew" in their hearts that God was disciplining or caring for them as a father cares for a son Deut 8:5. Such knowing can be hindered by a wrongly disposed heart Ps 95:10.
Thirdly, this verb can represent that kind of knowing which one learns and can give back. So Cain said that he did not "know" he was Abel's keeper Gen 4:9, and Abram told Sarai that he "knew" she was a beautiful woman Gen 12:11. One can also "know" by being told-- in Lev 5:1 a witness either sees or otherwise "knows" (by being told) pertinent information. In this sense "know" is paralleled by "acknowledge" Deut 33:9 and "learn" Deut 31:12-13. Thus, little children not yet able to speak do not "know" good and evil Deut 1:39; they have not learned it so as to tell another what it is. In other words, their knowledge is not such that they can distinguish between good and evil.
In addition to the essentially cognitive knowing already presented, this verb has a purely experiential side. The "knower" has actual involvement with or in the object of the knowing. So Potiphar was unconcerned about (literally, "did not know about") what was in his house Gen 39:6-- he had no actual contact with it. In Gen 4:1 Adam's knowing Eve also refers to direct contact with her-- in a sexual relationship. In Gen 18:19 God says He "knows" Abraham; He cared for him in the sense that He chose him from among other men and saw to it that certain things happened to him. The emphasis is on the fact that God "knew" him intimately and personally. In fact, it is parallel in concept to "sanctified" (cf. Jer 1:5). A similar use of this word relates to God's relationship to Israel as a chosen or elect nation Amos 3:2.
Yada` in the intensive and causative stems is used to express a particular concept of revelation. God did not make Himself known by His name Jehovah to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He did reveal that name to them, that He was the God of the covenant. Nevertheless, the covenant was not fulfilled (they did not possess the Promised Land) until the time of Moses. The statement in Ex 6:3 implies that now God was going to make Himself known "by His name"; He was going to lead them to possess the land. God makes Himself known through revelatory acts such as bringing judgment on the wicked Ps 9:16 and deliverance to His people Isa 66:14. He also reveals Himself through the spoken word-- for example, by the commands given through Moses Ezek 20:11, by promises like those given to David 2 Sam 7:21. Thus, God reveals Himself in law and promise. "To know" God is to have an intimate experiential knowledge of Him. So Pharaoh denies that he knows Jehovah Ex 5:2 or that he recognizes His authority over him. Positively "to know" God is paralleled to fear Him 1 Kings 8:43, to serve 1 Chron 28:9, and to trust Isa 43:10.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
™ Version 4.2
(1)
