Fancy language

  • News
  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
  • #1
356
2

Main Question or Discussion Point

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" [Broken] and started using big words, and then it died down. But now it seems to be flaring up again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
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.
 
  • #3
Art
Smurf said:
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" [Broken] 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.
 
  • #5
GENIERE
Tom Mattson said:
These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.
Not to my knowledge.:confused:
 
  • #6
356
2
Tom Mattson said:
These terms have been in constant use in scientific, mathematical, and philosophical circles.
Yes but not HERE.
 
  • #7
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #8
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
51
Smurf said:
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?
 
  • #9
Art
Smurf said:
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #10
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
GENIERE said:
Not to my knowledge.:confused:
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.
 
  • #11
356
2
Moonbear said:
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!
Art said:
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. :biggrin:
You see!? Look at this madness!
 
  • #12
Art
Smurf said:
You see!? Look at this madness!
Smurf, it was only a joke :biggrin:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
221
0
Art said:
Smurf, it was only a joke :biggrin:
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.
 
  • #14
Art
Townsend said:
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.
 
  • #15
221
0
Art said:
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. :smile:
 
  • #16
356
2
Maybe if we supply translations at the end of each post for the dumber readers of the forum, then everyone'd be happy.
 
  • #17
356
2
Art said:
terminalogicalinexactitudes.
How do you pronounce that? I want to use it in my class on tuesday!
 
  • #18
221
0
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #19
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
It's actually spelled incorrectly, but it's just a compound word. Pronounce it as a series of simpler words: terminological in exactitudes.
 
  • #20
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
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 cancelled 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?
 
  • #21
356
2
What does "actualized" mean anyway?
 
  • #22
GENIERE
Smurf said:
What does "actualized" mean anyway?
The opposite of `fantasize’ as in liberal writings, fairy tales and the like.
 
  • #23
356
2
You're a pillock. I don't mean to be mean, just, you know that you're a pillock right?
 
  • #24
GENIERE
Smurf said:
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.


..
 
  • #25
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
I declare Smurf to be Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
 

Related Threads for: Fancy language

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top