Lingusitics Fancy Language: Recent Resurgence?

[Smurf]

Is it just me, or is everyone suddenly using fancy language again? I remember about half a year ago everyone got their hands on http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html" and started using big words, and then it died down. But now it seems to be flaring up again.

 

[loseyourname]

This isn't fancy language; it's technical language. It's taught to everyone in Critical Thinking or Informal Logic classes that are part of the core requirement at most US universities, so posters who were college-educated in the US should, for the most part, know what these mean.

 

[Art]

Is it just me, or is everyone suddenly using fancy language again? I remember about half a year ago everyone got their hands on http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html" and started using big words, and then it died down. But now it seems to be flaring up again.

Or perhaps you are trying to kick it off again by supplying the ref lol

 

[quantumdude]

These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.

 

[GENIERE]

These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Smurf]

These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.

Yes but not HERE.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes but not HERE.

Yes, but there are people who post here who are also involved in these circles. Critical analysis of arguments and rhetoric are a huge part of the work I've been doing for several years now and these terms are par for the course.

 

[Moonbear]

Yes but not HERE.

Perhaps some folks are trying to raise the level of discussion in this forum by challenging the respondents to support their arguments and uphold the standards we have throughout the rest of PF?

 

[Art]

Yes but not HERE.

I agree that some posters do indeed appear to inebriated by the exuberance of their own vibrocity and with a mendacious leaning, resulting in a disgorgance of terminalogicalinexactitudes.

 

[quantumdude]

Not to my knowledge.

Certainly not all of them are used in each of those fields, but some of them certainly are. The reason is that some faulty patterns of reasoning are so common that it has become standard just to call them by name rather than to go into a detailed rebuttal each and every time that pattern surfaces in someone's argument.

 

[Smurf]

Perhaps some folks are trying to raise the level of discussion in this forum by challenging the respondents to support their arguments and uphold the standards we have throughout the rest of PF?

Exactly! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

I agree that some posters do indeed appear to inebriated by the exuberance of their own vibrocity and with a mendacious leaning, resulting in a disgorgance of terminalogicalinexactitudes.

You see!? Look at this madness!

 

[Art]

You see!? Look at this madness!

Smurf, it was only a joke

I agree with you. The point of communication is to impart understanding to as wide an audience as possible and so if people decide to test their newly acquired vocabularies gleaned from a philosophy course they are taking they are clearly not going to communicate effectively with a substantial proportion of the other posters here.

 

[Townsend]

Smurf, it was only a joke
I agree with you. The point of communication is to impart understanding to as wide an audience as possible and so if people decide to test their newly acquired vocablaries gleaned from a philosophy course they are taking they are clearly not going to communicate effectively with a substantial proportion of the other posters here.

But this is like the perfect place to put into practice what you learn in class.

 

[Art]

But this is like the perfect place to put into practice what you learn in class.

There's a philosophy forum to do that. This is a political forum.

Seeing as how most professional politicians can barely string a sentence together I am sure we can discuss their actions in plain English without resorting to highbrow language where the reader needs to sit with a dictionary in their hand whilst they try to decipher the language used to understand the points being made. Taking the post I made above that Smurf called madness as an example, whilst perfectly valid in terms of vocabulary and grammar it is meaningless gibberish to most.

nb They are actually statements used by Winston Churchill deliberately so that people would not understand what he was saying. In the house of commons an MP may not say another member has lied and so Churchill to circumvent this rule accused another member of speaking terminalogicalinexactitudes (another word for lies) as nobody had a clue what it meant he got away with it.

 

[Townsend]

There's a philosophy forum to do that. This is a political forum.
Seeing as how most professional politicians can barely string a sentence together I am sure we can discuss their actions in plain English without resorting to highbrow language where the reader needs to sit with a dictionary in their hand whilst they try to decipher the language used to understand the points being made.

I agree and all but the philosophy forum lacks the interesting topics that this forum has.

That is an interesting bit of trivia about Winston Churchill by the way.

 

[Smurf]

Maybe if we supply translations at the end of each post for the dumber readers of the forum, then everyone'd be happy.

 

[Smurf]

terminalogicalinexactitudes.

How do you pronounce that? I want to use it in my class on tuesday!

 

[Townsend]

How do you pronounce that? I want to use it in my class on tuesday!

Just make up your own pronunciation...after all it's not like anyone will know if you said it wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

It's actually spelled incorrectly, but it's just a compound word. Pronounce it as a series of simpler words: terminological in exactitudes.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, allow me to quote to you from an article I am using as research for a presentation I'm giving:

Deleuze uses the term in a second but closely related sense, one referring to the capacities of final products to enter into further processes. In particular, in this second sense the term refers to the capacity of individual entities to enter as components of heterogeneous assemblages, that is, compositions in which the differences among the parts are not canceled through homogenization. The extensive properties of an actual organism (as well as the qualities which define its identity) are produced by spatiotemporal dynamisms driven by intensive differences. In other words, individual organisms are 'actualized' via a difference-driven morphogenetic process.

That passage employs technical jargon from contemporary philosophy (largely borrowed from thermodynamics in this case). Since we're at a science forum, chances are that the average poster here will be able to read that more easily than I, but to the layperson it probably may as well be Sanskrit. The names of informal logical fallacies, in contrast, are relatively simple and well-known. Their usage is certainly not limited to academic philosophy and it would do anyone who makes arguments well to know them. After all, wouldn't you like to be able to catch yourself when you are making an error so common that it actually has its own name?

 

[Smurf]

What does "actualized" mean anyway?

 

[GENIERE]

What does "actualized" mean anyway?

The opposite of `fantasize’ as in liberal writings, fairy tales and the like.

 

[Smurf]

You're a pillock. I don't mean to be mean, just, you know that you're a pillock right?

 

[GENIERE]

You're a pillock. I don't mean to be mean, just, you know that you're a pillock right?

Careful now, I took 2 semesters of French some 45+ years ago but since it served no useful purpose to me, I remember only a few pejorative words. I do realize it is a necessary element of liberal discourse.


..

 

[Pengwuino]

I declare Smurf to be Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment

 

[loseyourname]

What does "actualized" mean anyway?

It's can be either the past-tense of the verb "to actualize," which can be expressed as "to be made actual," or, alternatively, an adjective describing the state of having come into existence. I believe that DeLanda (the author of this quotation) intended it in the second sense. Entity X is actualized if, and only if, it has come into existence. He probably also intends it to mean that the entity in question still exists; that is, it did not come into existence and then blink back out of existence. That is just speculation on my part, however; he never specifies to that degree exactly what he means.

 

[devil-fire]

i think longer words come out when people crack smaller words like "if" and "when" and "he" and "because".

ei.
poster1- in your last statement, what is exact definition of "since"?
poster2- i meant it to just mean "since"
poster1- no sorry, I am right and your wrong, your point has been sunk and i win"
poster2- oh fine, it actually meant "in the possible contingency of".
poster1- interesting point...

 

[russ_watters]

Is it just me, or is everyone suddenly using fancy language again? I remember about half a year ago everyone got their hands on http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html" and started using big words, and then it died down. But now it seems to be flaring up again.

I agree with loseyourname and I've been saying it for some time (as has he). What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing. The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording. The impeachment thread is a good example: we're three pages into a discussion of impeachment and we have yet to see anyone say what the charges should be! It's just random Bush-bashing.

I will, however, give props to the several liberals who insisted on using the correct definition of the word "impeachment" in that thread. The rhetoric does have limits for some.

 

[Anttech]

to actualize

Its actualise where I am from :-)

What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing.

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement, sometimes I think the opposite. That the Conservatives, seem to focus on the details, and miss the big picture. They also tend to ignore the important questions...

Anyway it seems I have to watch what I say round here, so no offence Russ. Typically you are very clear, I don't aggree with you always but you are clear enough

 

[BobG]

nb They are actually statements used by Winston Churchill deliberately so that people would not understand what he was saying. In the house of commons an MP may not say another member has lied and so Churchill to circumvent this rule accused another member of speaking terminalogicalinexactitudes (another word for lies) as nobody had a clue what it meant he got away with it.

He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the US. Several years ago, the public got all up in arms when a black newspaper columnist described a program director who was overly tight with his program's money as "niggardly".

 

[Smurf]

I agree with loseyourname and I've been saying it for some time (as has he). What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing. The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording. The impeachment thread is a good example: we're three pages into a discussion of impeachment and we have yet to see anyone say what the charges should be! It's just random Bush-bashing.

Oh, but of course. It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing.

 

[quantumdude]

IMO, the 'regulars' in P&WA and GD who do not venture elsewhere into the site would benefit greatly from reading the Philosophy section at the very least. It's not necessary to learn Latin terms, but some knowledge of how to argue rationally would certainly benefit anyone whose purpose is to persuade others. In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question (!).

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, but of course. It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing.

Pretty much, yeah. This forum is dominated by liberals and because of that, you guys control the tone. When no one in the entire first page of a thread comments on the article in the OP (the Hummer thread), what else can be said about it? When no one in a thread about impeaching Bush can come up with any charges to impeach him for, what else can be said about that?

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement, sometimes I think the opposite. That the Conservatives, seem to focus on the details, and miss the big picture. They also tend to ignore the important questions...

I'll admit to paying a lot of attention to details (whether it is undue attention or not is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours). I've been called a pedant before and I'm fine with that. I am, afterall, an engineer.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, the 'regulars' in P&WA and GD who do not venture elsewhere into the site would benefit greatly from reading the Philosophy section at the very least. It's not necessary to learn Latin terms, but some knowledge of how to argue rationally would certainly benefit anyone whose purpose is to persuade others. In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question (!).

Bravo, to that.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe if we supply translations at the end of each post for the dumber readers of the forum, then everyone'd be happy.

I learn new words in here all the time, Smurf - there is nothing wrong with reaching for the dictionary every now and then.

 

[Anttech]

In the space of 2 days in the P&WA Forum I have seen remarks that indicate the inability to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid one, a rebuttal from a personal attack, and even a declarative sentence from a question

Would you like to give examples? One man's "Rebuttal" Is another Mans personal insult! Please don't take offence!

Thanks

 

[pattylou]

The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording.

Apologies if this has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread:

Pointless, random, ranting neohippieism. Just wanted to let you all know I'd seen it but won't even bother trying to argue against it. At face value, it should be clear there is no need.

I would argue that my above observation is not an ad hominem (that's a personal atack, smurf), but rather me trying to set the record straight. Call me a pedant, Russ.
~~~~~
And, incidentally:

I will, however, give props to the several liberals who insisted on using the correct definition of the word "impeachment" in that thread. The rhetoric does have limits for some.

And some of us refused to even *participate* on that thread. I don't know if you realize that, or appreciate the implications.

 

[pattylou]

Pretty much, yeah. This forum is dominated by liberals and because of that, you guys control the tone. <snip>When no one in a thread about impeaching Bush can come up with any charges to impeach him for, what else can be said about that?

One thing that can be said about it is that many of the liberals thought the topic was not worth participating on at all. This does not equate to an opinion on Bush, but rather an opinion on the subject matter as a topic for debate.


Let me ask you something. If the PWA forum is 70% liberal, and 30% conservative (with moderates in both camps) ...

And hypothetically 90% of the conservatives use ad hominems, rhetoric, etc... but only 50% of the liberals do...

Then we will have the majority of mindless rhetoric coming from the liberals. But, the conservatives will actually be more prone to the behavior!

So, which camp is worse?

The point is, your argument that "mindless rhetoric" is a predominantly liberal tendency (on the basis that we "dominate" the forum) is bad logic.

I hope you wouldn't use this sort of misquided math in any research you were involved with. It certainly wouldn't fly in biological research, such as clinical trials of a new drug.

 

[Art]

I agree with loseyourname and I've been saying it for some time (as has he). What it actually looks like to me, though Smurf, is that the liberals on this board are dropping their level of debate and that is causing the apparent contrast you're noticing. The liberals are just arguing mindless rhetoric while the conservatives are insisting on precision of wording. The impeachment thread is a good example: we're three pages into a discussion of impeachment and we have yet to see anyone say what the charges should be! It's just random Bush-bashing.
I will, however, give props to the several liberals who insisted on using the correct definition of the word "impeachment" in that thread. The rhetoric does have limits for some.

Ref the link above supplied by Smurf.

I believe this style of argument is;

Argument By Generalization:
drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation.)

I don't believe anybody or any group can lay claim to the moral highground when arguing politics. In fact I have yet to see anybody (including me ) change their mind on a substantive issue no matter how well constructed or argued the other side's case.

As to the verbosity originally mentioned by Smurf, I think Churchill summed it up quite well

Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

 

[quantumdude]

Would you like to give examples?

How about a hypothetical?

Let one person assert that proposition X is true.
When a second party builds a case for the proposition ~X, that is a rebuttal. The rebuttal should employ such logical techniques as demonstrating that X does not follow from the premises forwarded by the first party, or by demonstrating that ~X follows from a proposition to which both parties have agreed.

When a second party simply denies X, thereby asserting ~X, that is a disagreement. Disagreements typically remain disagreements because more often than not the two parties are using two different sets of premises. Disagreements are fine, provided that they stick to the propositions that have been forwarded.

This brings me to the last two types of responses that I want to cover.
When a second party asserts ~X, and conjoins with it a comment about the other person (as opposed to the other person's statements) (eg: You are an idiot for believing X) then that is a personal attack, which is a type of ad hominem.

And finally, when a second party alters the actual position of the first party from proposition X to a different, weaker proposition X', and then proceeds to argue against X' as though X' were held to by the first party, then this is a case of a particularly underhanded form of ad hominem which is known as a strawman

Neither of the last two are acceptable modes of discussion among educated people.

One man's "Rebuttal" Is another Mans personal insult!

While it is certainly sometimes true that a person can become offended by a proper rebuttal, it is not the case that what is and what is not a proper rebuttal is a matter of opinion. The logic is either there, or it is not.

Please don't take offence!

I never do take offense to intelligent rebuttals or disagreements.

 

[Anttech]

When a second party builds a case for the proposition ~X, that is a rebuttal. The rebuttal should employ such logical techniques as demonstrating that X does not follow from the premises forwarded by the first party, or by demonstrating that ~X follows from a proposition to which both parties have agreed.
When a second party simply denies X, thereby asserting ~X, that is a disagreement. Disagreements typically remain disagreements because more often than not the two parties are using two different sets of premises. Disagreements are fine, provided that they stick to the propositions that have been forwarded.
This brings me to the last two types of responses that I want to cover.
When a second party asserts ~X, and conjoins with it a comment about the other person (as opposed to the other person's statements) (eg: You are an idiot for believing X) then that is a personal attack, which is a type of ad hominem.
And finally, when a second party alters the actual position of the first party from proposition X to a different, weaker proposition X', and then proceeds to argue against X' as though X' were held to by the first party, then this is a case of a particularly underhanded form of ad hominem which is known as a strawman
Neither of the last two are acceptable modes of discussion among educated people.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I see no evidence of it here. Perhaps our premises are different and will remain different.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[russ_watters]

Apologies if this has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread:
I would argue that my above observation is not an ad hominem (that's a personal atack, smurf), but rather me trying to set the record straight. Call me a pedant, Russ.

Huh? Could you explain, please?

Let me ask you something. If the PWA forum is 70% liberal, and 30% conservative (with moderates in both camps) ...

And hypothetically 90% of the conservatives use ad hominems, rhetoric, etc... but only 50% of the liberals do...

Then we will have the majority of mindless rhetoric coming from the liberals. But, the conservatives will actually be more prone to the behavior!

So, which camp is worse?

In that case, with those hypothetical numbers, the liberal side is still the side responsible for the the majority of the negative tone. Yes, that means that a few bad apples can ruin it for everyone else. Perhaps that's unfair, but that's life.

Ref the link above supplied by Smurf.

I believe this style of argument is...

Argument By Generalization

No, but it is good that you are trying to identify such things. By all means, continue.

I don't believe anybody or any group can lay claim to the moral highground when arguing politics. In fact I have yet to see anybody (including me ) change their mind on a substantive issue no matter how well constructed or argued the other side's case.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not people are open-minded, but rather how well thought-out and presented their opinions are.

 

[Anttech]

I'll admit to paying a lot of attention to details (whether it is undue attention or not is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours). I've been called a pedant before and I'm fine with that. I am, afterall, an engineer.

I am also an Engineer, not a Mechanical Engineer but a Network/Telecoms Engineer. In my Job I find that having a good overview of what is happening far more beneficial than getting lost in the details. The Details can be important, but not all the details, just ones that actually matter to that overall picture. IE the ones that if you don't get right the process breaks..

 

[russ_watters]

While it is certainly sometimes true that a person can become offended by a proper rebuttal, it is not the case that what is and what is not a proper rebuttal is a matter of opinion. The logic is either there, or it is not.

I never do take offense to intelligent rebuttals or disagreements.

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

 

[pattylou]

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

Part of the problem is probably due to the fact that there are a decent number of non-americans participating. The language won't always sound the same if you were raised in a different culture from the person who is speaking to you.

The problem is widespread on the internet anyway, due to the lack of body-language cues in conversation.

 

[russ_watters]

I am also an Engineer, not a Mechanical Engineer but a Network/Telecoms Engineer. In my Job I find that having a good overview of what is happening far more beneficial than getting lost in the details. The Details can be important, but not all the details, just ones that actually matter to that overall picture. IE the ones that if you don't get right the process breaks..

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.

Similarly, one bad assumption/logic step can mean an entire line of reasoning is flawed.

 

[Anttech]

The inability to distinguish between a genuine insult (on both the giving and receiving end) is a big, big problem here.

Perhaps, but you may get insulted by something I would not, and the other way around.

For example, hypothetically speaking, Mr X may enjoy being talked to in a arrogant condecending overtone, while Mr Y is very insulted by this. So a person talking in this arrogant way could very easy insult Mr Y, but not Mr X.

To be insulted takes two people...

 

[pattylou]

Huh? Could you explain, please?

The second quote (from you, and using words like "Pointless, random, ranting neohippieism") was rhetoric, without details to back it up. What part of the thread was pointless? What was random? Why did you not identify those parts and allow your "opponent" to explain why those positions weren't random or pointless?

You claimed that mindless rhetoric was "pretty much" a problem with the liberals. Yet your quote qualifies. This isn't inconsistent with your claim (we all post like that sometimes...) it just seems like an oversight on your part.

In that case, with those hypothetical numbers, the liberal side is still the side responsible for the the majority of the negative tone.

Smurf said:"It's only the liberals that resort to random bashing." And you responded "Pretty much, yeah."

If your position is that, in terms of "mindless rhetoric," the typical liberal here is worse than the typical conservative here, then your numbers argument is insufficient to demonstrate it.

If your position is simply ... that there are more liberals here, and that because of that, mindless rhetoric is more likely to come from them, then such a position entirely changes the tone of your response to Smurf. I have little problem agreeing with you if this is your position.

Which position are you holding?

 

[Townsend]

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.
Similarly, one bad assumption/logic step can mean an entire line of reasoning is flawed.

If a system of logic is complete then it is computable...however it does require that the programer make a valid program that does what it is suppose to do. So you are exactly correct russ...which I know you know but I just wanted to say I agree with you.

However, I also think it doesn't do well to talk too far over peoples head, like what Art was saying in the Winston Churchill example. In the end our goals should be to extract some form of truth and not just to 'win' the argument.

 

[Anttech]

But at the same time, in a computer network, every single connection matters. Miss one bad connection and an entire network can fail.

Actually it doesnt, that's my point. If the people who wrote RFC's for example got stuck in the details of how to create a reliable protocol that never lost packets. The internet would never have been born. The IEEE members who thought up these protocols, built in Redundancies, which ment that the detail of a few packets not arrive doesn't matter, because the recieveing end can ask for these packets again... The overall Flow of traffic is what is important not the details. This is also the case with routing protocols, if one router fails, its doesn't matter really, because an engineer with a good overall logic will build in redundancies which compensate for that, and the routing protocol being dynamic and not stuck smashing its head against the fact that one router is down, will find a different path, and the network will settle down again.