Re: [FRIAM] Dictionary definitions

2008-11-12 Thread Pamela McCorduck 

Your channel to God is excellent.


On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows.

Yes, God IS speaking through me.

The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one  
is
inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything.  Dictionary makers  
are at
pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral.  The  
kings
english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or  
any

other authority ... speak.

When somebody says, I think we ought to keep close to the defnition   
they
are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course,  
is a

fairly silly claim.

These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with
respect to the supreme court.  The argument is not, of course, whether  
we
are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how  
swiftly

we are going to change it.

The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live
amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument  
about

whether to call these arrangements marriages is a sign  of magical
thinking.  Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it  
still

is magical thinking.

Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were
replaced by keys.

Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by
feminism and the grammatical construction each  {she/he/they).
Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we  
introduce
the neologism ter as a singular neuter possessive.  Each man/woman  
to

ter own opinion.  I wish we had done it.  Because we didnt have the
courage or discipline to do it,  I still have to suffer, 40 years  
later,
Each man to their own opinion.Their has ceased to become a  
plural
possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I  
like,

but it is still contemporary usage.

Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language  
will

just  change.

Ok.  That's all He told me to say.

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: friam@redfish.com
Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM
Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
friam@redfish.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of Friam digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
   2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
   3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
   4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell)
   5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
   6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
   7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
   8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson)
   9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm)
  10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller)
  11. Fewer subscription requireds (Robert Holmes)
  12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700
From: Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
friam@redfish.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime.  Is there a particularly
good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?

One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
account the time extrapolation.  Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.

 -- Owen


On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:


Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out
the
work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's
actual
significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already
got the
largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
efforts.
Robert

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

wrote:



Hi, Jack.

If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
field
of cosmology in one regard or another.  I'm envious of those who do
work in
cosmology-related fields..

At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot,

Re: [FRIAM] Dictionary definitions

2008-11-12 Thread glen e. p. ropella 
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/11/2008 07:28 PM:
 When somebody says, I think we ought to keep close to the defnition  they
 are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a
 fairly silly claim. 
 
 These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with
 respect to the supreme court.  The argument is not, of course, whether we
 are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly
 we are going to change it.
 
 The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live
 amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about
 whether to call these arrangements marriages is a sign  of magical
 thinking.  Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still
 is magical thinking.  

I don't think arguments about the definition of marriage are a sign of
magical thinking at all.  Rather, it's a sign that the people doing the
arguing are literate (and at least one half are literal).  Literacy is a
good thing and we should encourage it.  The literate nature of the
people on this list is the cause of the arguments about the surprising
efficacy of mathematics.  A mathematical proof is precisely an argument
about definitions.  Likewise, math, being a language, changes over time,
albeit more slowly than natural language.

To take your claim to its logical conclusion, that would mean
mathematical proofs are evidence of magical thinking.  (Indeed,
non-platonists _do_ accuse platonists of magical thinking.  And some
very deep, considerate thinkers have even claimed that all positivist
rhetoric is tautological. ;-)

So claiming that these arguments that are based on definitions is a sign
of magical thinking is either wrong or idealistic and impractical
like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The bare truth is that it is _very_ good to have right-wingers making
definitional/legal distinctions in this way, because that means that
they can _read_.  Granted, they may not think very clearly.  It's like
when a child begins arguing about how their teacher teaches algebra.
They may be wrong in their rhetoric; but at least they're literate
enough to lay out their rhetoric.

The more sophisticated truth is that the presence of these
legal/definitional arguments in the household is evidence that we peons
are actually getting involved in the rhetoric laid down by our
legislators.  I.e. law, once solely accessible to the very rich and very
intelligent, is now becoming accessible to the masses.  And that's a
good thing, even if we still need to protect ourselves from premature
populism.

And the most sophisticated truth is that the people making
legal/definitional arguments are seeking _precision_ in their language
and their societal code.  And that's a very good thing.  Again, granted,
precision is not a panacea; but it's evidence that people are seeking
better, more expressive language with which to express the human
condition.  It is progressive.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Dictionary definitions

2008-11-11 Thread Roger Critchlow 
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were
 replaced by keys.


I came home tonight to a crisis in our home telephone land.  My daughter
says the phones are broken, everytime she tries to call Shelby the phone
doesn't work, she places the phone on speaker, enters Shelby's number,
presses dial, and the phone goes click click-click-click-click-click
click-click-click-click 

If we'd waited long enough it would have finished dialing the call to
Shelby in Texas.

It took longer to figure out how to unreprogram the phones than it did to
figure out what had happened, still don't know how it happened.

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org