William: Nope. Doesn't work. I think Cheerskep might join with me in
asserting that there is no meaning in a test result. The meaning comes when
I decide that the cancer is bad. A surgeon might predict death in a certain
time period without intervention but he/she would not necessarily view the
cancer as "bad". Leading to more or more intense symptoms/death and
therefore bad, perhaps. And, as a footnote to that argument, there would be
a big difference for me if the cancer was skin or prostate cancer versus
liver cancer, although, yes, none would be good.
The value-free methodology produces information/words which we consider and
after a moment's thought, conclude that the information is bad or predicts
trouble. The meaning is not in the words - it's reached when we
decipher/associate to the words we hear/read.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 'The value' is linguistic quicksand
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:34:38 -0800 (PST)
How about this? Tests show that your body has cancer. That cancer is bad
for your body.
There's a value free methodology pronouncing on the value (cancer is bad)
of an artifact (your body). Millions of other examples can be found, I
suspect.
WC
--- On Fri, 11/14/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 'The value' is linguistic quicksand
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 9:51 AM
> > Geoff wrote:
> >
> >> "I just don't see how a methodology which
> is supposedly value-free
> >> can
> >> pronounce on the value of artifacts.
>
>
> A phrase to remember, thanks, cheerskep.
> mando
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Too briefly: The phrase "the value" is
> communication quicksand, both
> > because of 'the' and because of
> 'value'. The word/notion "value"
> > is what
> > I'll call
> > "soft" as opposed to "hard" --
> i.e. it doesn't come attached to
> > current or
> > potential sense data. "Eiffel Tower" and
> "taste of vanilla" are
> > hard phrases.
> > Soft, derivative phrases aren't useful without
> serviceably precise
> > descriptions
> > of the notions behind them.
> >
> > The definite article 'the' both reifies and
> implies there is solely
> > a single
> > "referent". But readers will claim there are
> many different kinds
> > of "value".
> > This prompts Chris to an oblique half-response:
> >
> > "Some artifacts serve as better scientific
> evidence than others
> > -- that's
> > how."
> >
> > Geoff's response to that aims to harden the phrase
> a bit, but the
> > exchange is
> > unlikely to escape the quicksand.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************
> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie
> news &
> > more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10000
> >
> 0075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/
>
> > moviefone/downloa
> > d.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
