Water

[fast]

Though you may have a point in there somewhere, fast, you should realize that many ancient civilizations realized that ice, water, and steam were all forms of one substance- long before science as a way of examining the natural world was systematized. So your example is so poor that I still find your point incomprehensible.

Of course. It's not hard to notice what water becomes once frozen, and it's true that the molecule H2O can take on many forms--even before the time people knew its chemical components.

I agree that bread is still bread even once it becomes toasted, so it's not strange that some would continue to call ice, water, even though it's no longer liquid, but is it really the situation that all examples are created equally? I can understand that one might say he's eating cow when eating beef, but what examples are confused, I'm not sure. I am eating chicken seems normal, as there is no air about it that colloquially confuses the animal with the meat that comes from the animal, but I'm eating cow seems to be a stretch--understandable as it might be.

I would have thought "water" was sufficiently ambiguous enough to make the dileanation between H2O in its liquid form and H2O regardless of form. If not, then ok, poor example on my part.

 

[fast]

That is one of the most breathtakingly stupidly wrong things I've seen written down outside of a bible. Your attempts to restrict the use of certain words is childish, ill-informed and incredibly useless.



Because water is so omnipresent on this planet, just as with other things, we have different words to shorthand the common states of the substance.
Are you also saying snow isn't water? Or cloud?

But I don't expect you to listen to, or absorb any of this. This thread belongs in elsewhere, not in a philosophical discussion forum....the OP is gibberish.

What I'm doing is expounding upon the implications of a restricted usage, yes, but the point of honing in the point of divergence is so that it can be recognized as being an underlying component into why so many discussions become hopelessly lost.

Free will is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Time is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Atheist is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Seeing is a example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

The ability to see evolved. None of the rest did.

Concepts changing over time as minds decide to change them based on new evidence and ideas is not evolution.

It is change but not evolution.

Evolution does not have a mind deciding this and that.

I didn't think "evolve" was that strict. It's a change that isn't instant. Seemed appropriate at the time.

 

[fast]

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

But that isn't the fault of science; it's a consequence of the complexity of the universe we live in.

And though I'd agree that it's damned easy for people to talk past one another, it isn't inevitable; the very flexibility of language allows us to formulate our ideas in many different patterns of words, and hopefully to focus and refine our meanings until we understand each other. We can successively approximate our ideas back and forth to each other, until we are in very close agreement that we mutually understand what we're talking about.

I'm not blaming science. I'm blaming people of science. I respect science. For that matter, I respect scientists. What I'm driving at is that the interpretations put forth are to be judged with a careful eye. Science is good in that it teaches us things about vision we once did not know, but there's a difference between articulating newfound knowledge and not rejecting past truths vs redefining terms and pointing out previous beliefs were in error--especially when the very meanings of words are being toyed with.

When I talk about what something is, I mean to use the "is of identity" such that all a is b and all b is a.

If I say that a cow is an animal, that isn't the "is of identity" as all animals aren't cows.

 

[steve_bank]

What I am wondering is how you are able to communicat with e and navigate the real world.

Well, all in all, I usually take a go-with-the-flow approach and speak with the convention in current use, but like so many subject issues that when taken to task devolve into language usage, I try to maintain an aweness of what's being communicated from different perspectives.

A common retort is about what science has demonstrated, but seldom do I see an acknowledgement distinguishing between what science has brought versus what scientists have conveyed.

The objective sconce is mathematical models and experiment subject to peer review.

Conveyed? Scientists are not unemotional Vulcans. What science conveys is philosophical and religions interpretations and meanings.

Sit back, close your eyes, and repeat to yourself science is made up of individuals who fifer in philosophy and religion'. Theists always paint secular science as a monolithic homogenous entity with a singular purpose and agenda.

 

[untermensche]

The ability to see evolved. None of the rest did.

Concepts changing over time as minds decide to change them based on new evidence and ideas is not evolution.

It is change but not evolution.

Evolution does not have a mind deciding this and that.

I didn't think "evolve" was that strict. It's a change that isn't instant. Seemed appropriate at the time.

Biological evolution is specifically a kind of change where no external intelligence is necessary.

It is distinct from things humans change with their minds.

It is no huge sin to use the word "evolve" loosely but it is misleading.

Not all change is evolution.

Some of it is willed change by minds based on new evidence and ideas.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Though you may have a point in there somewhere, fast, you should realize that many ancient civilizations realized that ice, water, and steam were all forms of one substance- long before science as a way of examining the natural world was systematized. So your example is so poor that I still find your point incomprehensible.

Go on, provide actual examples together with what words these people used to refer to water, ice and steam. Tell me in which country people asked for a glass of ice by saying "A glass of water, please".
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I'm doing is expounding upon the implications of a restricted usage, yes, but the point of honing in the point of divergence is so that it can be recognized as being an underlying component into why so many discussions become hopelessly lost.

Free will is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Time is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Atheist is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Seeing is a example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

The ability to see evolved. None of the rest did.

Concepts changing over time as minds decide to change them based on new evidence and ideas is not evolution.

It is change but not evolution.

Evolution does not have a mind deciding this and that.

You're English is really crap. It's perfectly appropriate to talk of our idea of time as having evolved. Same for the rest.

v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To arise or transform through evolutionary processes.

You should look up dictionaries now and then, and certainly before you go into telling people how words should be used.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The ability to see evolved. None of the rest did.

Concepts changing over time as minds decide to change them based on new evidence and ideas is not evolution.

It is change but not evolution.

Evolution does not have a mind deciding this and that.

I didn't think "evolve" was that strict. It's a change that isn't instant. Seemed appropriate at the time.

Biological evolution is specifically a kind of change where no external intelligence is necessary.

It is distinct from things humans change with their minds.

It is no huge sin to use the word "evolve" loosely but it is misleading.

Not all change is evolution.

Some of it is willed change by minds based on new evidence and ideas.

It is you who are misleading people.

Fast talked of "evolution", not of "biological evolution" and evolution is definitely not necessarily biological evolution. The word "evolve" came from the Latin, and well before Darwinian evolution was discovered:

1635–45; < Latin ēvolvere to unroll, open, unfold.

Your English really, really sucks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You're English is really crap. It's perfectly appropriate to talk of our idea of time as having evolved. Same for the rest.

My English is perfect. It is what a natural language should be.

It is not stilted and robotic and unnecessarily inflexible like the language of some.

It is not a matter of having knowledge of English.

It is a matter of intellectual rigor.

Using the word "evolve" loosely is nothing to boast about or defend.

Organisms evolve. They have mechanisms that allow for evolution over time, usually very long periods of time.

Other things can change but they do not evolve.

And anything under the control of the human mind does not evolve.

Thinking has changed a little since 1645.

This is just using concepts loosely. It is confusion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're English is really crap. It's perfectly appropriate to talk of our idea of time as having evolved. Same for the rest.

My English is perfect. It is what a natural language should be.

It is not stilted and robotic and unnecessarily inflexible like the language of some.

It is not a matter of having knowledge of English.

It is a matter of intellectual rigor.

Using the word "evolve" loosely is nothing to boast about or defend.

Organisms evolve. They have mechanisms that allow for evolution over time, usually very long periods of time.

Other things can change but they do not evolve.

And anything under the control of the human mind does not evolve.

Thinking has changed a little since 1645.

This is just using concepts loosely. It is confusion.

That's all a stupid claim but go on, show your evidence.

Me, I provided a straightforward quote from a dictionary and I could multiply them. No need really, we can all check dictionaries and see I'm right and you're wrong. Easy do.

You on the other hand have no evidence to show for your idiotic position here. All you can do is just mindlessly repeat your claim.

So, please show us the evidence that the word "evolution" today is used as you claim only to talk of things like biological evolution.

I can give you more examples you're wrong with more quotes from dictionaries: Popular music evolved from folk songs. This was when he evolved his working method from which he never departed. Ideas (science, techniques) evolve, says my dictionary. Now, show me the evidence you have for your stupid claim.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You understand that the Theory of Evolution was developed after 1645?

You understand that understandings of words change over the centuries?

Now when we say something evolves there is a robust scientific theory with that name.

One can still loosely describe all change as evolving but the concept of evolving has grown since 1645.

It just depends on what one is looking for.

Clarity or cloudiness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You understand that the Theory of Evolution was developed after 1645?

You understand that understandings of words change over the centuries?

Now when we say something evolves there is a robust scientific theory with that name.

One can still loosely describe all change as evolving but the concept of evolving has grown since 1645.

It just depends on what one is looking for.

Clarity or cloudiness.

???

So, where's the evidence I was asking for?!

So you have no evidence.

I guess we can also tell from your post here you have a particularly muddled understanding.

I don't remember you ever articulating your views in a logical way. It just never adds up.

Still, let's not get lost in the details of your many wrongs. The point is, you have no evidence of your idiotic claim that the word "evolution" is now only understood as referring to things like biological evolution.

How could it wrong in any way to use the word "evolution" to talk about the evolution of ideas and words, for example, when current dictionaries explicitly provide examples of just such a usage?!

How can you persist in your idiotic claim when all you have to do is check on the Internet or any recently published dictionary?!

You're truly beyond reprieve.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You want evidence the Theory of Evolution arose after 1645?

You want evidence that when we talk about evolution we have a major and robust Theory that exists with that name?

You want evidence that the thinking of humans changes over time?

For some that is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You want evidence the Theory of Evolution arose after 1645?

You want evidence that when we talk about evolution we have a major and robust Theory that exists with that name?

You want evidence that the thinking of humans changes over time?

For some that is.

I think my post what cristal clear. I asked you for evidence of your idiotic claim that the word "evolution" would be now only understood as referring to things like biological evolution. Nothing else.

You're definitely out of joint.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is only one Theory of Evolution.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is only one Theory of Evolution.

More and only fudge.

So you don't have evidence for your idiotic claim that the word "evolution" is now only understood as referring to things like biological evolution.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You're bored and boring.

There is a wide understanding of evolution as a scientific theory.

There is no understanding of just "evolution".

The term on it's own has no specific meaning.

If all one is talking about is change then saying "evolve" is misleading.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're bored and boring.

There is a wide understanding of evolution as a scientific theory.

Deviously irrelevant fudge.

There is no understanding of just "evolution".

The term on it's own has no specific meaning.

You must be kidding... Look here again. It's the evidence I have:

v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To arise or transform through evolutionary processes.

Please note the biological sense come second.

If all one is talking about is change then saying "evolve" is misleading.

What's misleading about saying you evolve a style of your own? Dictionary says it means you develop a style of your own gradually. I can even complete the meaning here. I means you change your style over time according to for example your experience of how effective it is, perhaps seeing how other people react to it. So you gain experience and use it to change your style. It's a complex process. It's not just random change.
EB