Is language itself a problem?

[Bodi]

I often wonder just how much I really know about what other people are saying in forums like this.

I mean, they use the same words I do. But is the meaning in their brain which they intend to convey to me the same as the meaning I give to what they are saying?

I mean, for example, look at how most of the communication between people is nonverbal, or invective, or stress on certain words, and so on?
Emoticons don't replace these. They have their place, but this is about something deeper.

Take the sentence - "I did not say he stole the money." Just by changing the word I stress alone, it can mean 5 different things.

I did not say he stole the money

Means someone said it, but it wasn't me.

I did not say he stole the money

A flat denial.

I did not say he stole the money

I might have implied it, but I certainly never said it.

I did not say he stole the money

He may have taken the money, but he didn't steal it.

I did not say he stole the money

He stole something, all right, but it wasn't the money.

Sure, someone can italicize words, but how many don't because they assume you're going to understand what they mean?

Then you have to consider how wide or narrow someones definitions are. You all know what I mean. :D It's a huge problem, really when you think about it.

Then you've got tons of other related issues.

How could we come up with an error bar system for conversations, and wouldn't that be interesting?

[Floyt]

I suppose that is why when writing, you need to make sure your intended nuance is expressed using the tools available (sentence structure, formatting, smilies), and when reading, make standard assumptions about the most likely intendended nuance.

For example, in the above sentence, you probably wouldn't assume that I was exhorting you specifically, but rather apply the standard interpretation of "one needs to make sure...". It's really no different from the usual communication templates, maybe with slightly more room for willful misinterpretation ;)

BTW, wrong sub-forum?

[Bodi]

wrong sub-forum?

Oh. Sorry. Which would be the correct one, and how do I move it?

[Fnord]

So, if I understand you correctly, when you said:
You all know what I mean.
You are actually implying that a healthy diet that is high in fiber should be accompanied by at least eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day.

Or did I miss something?

[roger]

So, if I understand you correctly, when you said:

You are actually implying that a healthy diet that is high in fiber should be accompanied by at least eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day.

Or did I miss something?Bloodwood is a medium to hard wood with red to crimson color and tight straight interlocking grain.

[tesscaline]

I don't think it's in the wrong sub-forum. I happen to think that the language limitations of a written medium such as an internet forum is relevant to skepticism in general, especially when it comes to the promotion thereof.

I've seen quite a number of instances (and even been involved in some) where people who might otherwise have agreed (or at least not disagreed vehemently) ended up in arguments simply because one party did not understand what the other party was trying to say. And then think about how many arguments are gotten into over semantics here.

I think that language (or, more appropriately, one's use of language) is actually a bit of a hinderance at times. So many words have so many different meanings, and can take on so many more meanings depending upon the context they're used in. Only the writer truly knows what they mean to say, and if they're not exceedingly meticulous about how they use words, that meaning can be lost. Even when the writer IS exceedingly meticulous about what words they use the meaning can be lost simply because a reader is projecting their own emotion upon the piece.

That's why it's so important for all parties to qualify statements, to provide definitions, to agree to the context of what is being said, and to attempt to keep a neutral tone. Failing even slightly to do any one of those things can lead to a huge misunderstanding, setting you back with your target audience, and undermining your intended goals.

No one's perfect, of course, so expecting such things from everyone would be unreasonable. But it's always good to at least try. And in the case that someone fails, it's generally better all around to give the benefit of the doubt at first, instead of getting hot under the collar. Again, not something everyone can do all the time. We are human after all. But a good best practice anyway :)

If only we were all telepathic, and could instantly read each other's minds to understand exactly what the other person meant... Unfortunately, no such wonder exists and we're stuck muddling through with a varied and extremely malleable external communication form in the attempt to convert the abstract to the actual :(

[Dr H]

I often wonder just how much I really know about what other people are saying in forums like this.

I mean, they use the same words I do. But is the meaning in their brain which they intend to convey to me the same as the meaning I give to what they are saying?

I hear you. Even though we may all garsnarkle the same words, when we vibin to explain we are all too often frasfain. Sometimes the snerd gets distimmed in the process, and then we just do the derpt we can in hlurffing up subsequent lommage.

But really, what's the alternative?

[Fnord]

But really, what's the alternative?
.
If a bowling ball toward a movie theater derives perverse satisfaction from the judge, then the incinerated wedge starts reminiscing about lost glory. Some pig pen prays, or a parking lot avoids contact with another graduated cylinder. If the gentle sandwich gives lectures on morality to the demon beyond the tornado, then another rattlesnake flies into a rage. A plaintiff is underhandedly frustrating.

[icerat]

Do I dare click "nominate" for that? :D

[Fnord]

Do I dare click "nominate" for that? :D
.
Purple.

[Dr H]

And then think about how many arguments are gotten into over semantics here.

Often and often I see, or am involved in discussions in which one party flings at another "you're just arguing semantics", as if semantics were merely an unimportant distraction. In fact, semantics is at the core of how we communicate -- or fail to communicate. This is why those wont to engage in formal arguments, or to propose formal proofs, are meticulous in defining their key terms up-front, and securing agreement on those definitions, prior to proceding to the actual argument/proof.

Failure to follow this protocol is practically a fixed feature of arguments about the existence and/or qualities of "God," for example. So many of these arguments don't get around to the question "well, what do you mean by the term "God" until they've "progressed" to the verge of invoking Godwin's Law. When this happens, the problem is not that the parties have moved from the topic into a semantic debate, but that they are having the necessary semantic debate at the wrong point in time, and far too late to salvage further topical discussion.

Only the writer truly knows what they mean to say,

Sometimes not even the writer knows. :)


That's why it's so important for all parties to qualify statements, to provide definitions, to agree to the context of what is being said, and to attempt to keep a neutral tone.

Yes; exactly my point in re "semantics."


If only we were all telepathic, and could instantly read each other's minds to understand exactly what the other person meant...

<ahem> You mean, "if only all the rest of us were telepathic . . .

But fear not: the JREF million is safe, for I am foresworn never to use my powers for monetary gain. ;)

[I Ratant]

On a forum with a primarily social context such as this, the nuances of the written word can be more easily abused without compromising the communications over some locations where technical information is being discussed, and singing from the same page becomes important to get the idea across without too much confusion as to what is being discussed.
Terminology and spelling becomes more important, to finger out the theme of a message being elbows, and not ***holes.

[Marduk]

How could we come up with an error bar system for conversations, and wouldn't that be interesting?

anyone whos used MSN messenger to talk to a partner has already developed their cross internet psychic ability to the degree that written language is superfluous

So I don't think it really matters, if someone takes something you say the wrong way and takes offense, you'll get plenty of oppotunity to reiterate what you really meant anyway

this isn't rocket science, its an internet forum.

[realpaladin]

this isn't rocket science, its an internet forum.

Yeah! Rocket science is easy!

[tesscaline]

Often and often I see, or am involved in discussions in which one party flings at another "you're just arguing semantics", as if semantics were merely an unimportant distraction. In fact, semantics is at the core of how we communicate -- or fail to communicate. This is why those wont to engage in formal arguments, or to propose formal proofs, are meticulous in defining their key terms up-front, and securing agreement on those definitions, prior to proceding to the actual argument/proof.

Failure to follow this protocol is practically a fixed feature of arguments about the existence and/or qualities of "God," for example. So many of these arguments don't get around to the question "well, what do you mean by the term "God" until they've "progressed" to the verge of invoking Godwin's Law. When this happens, the problem is not that the parties have moved from the topic into a semantic debate, but that they are having the necessary semantic debate at the wrong point in time, and far too late to salvage further topical discussion.



Sometimes not even the writer knows. :)




Yes; exactly my point in re "semantics."I fully agree with all of the above. It goes straight to the heart of what I was attempting to convey in my own post.

I've been saddened by the tendency of people to cry "pedant!", or "you're just arguing semantics!" at those who are trying to nail down exactly what's being discussed so that they can address it properly.


<ahem> You mean, "if only all the rest of us were telepathic . . . :P

[Lucian]

.
If a bowling ball toward a movie theater derives perverse satisfaction from the judge, then the incinerated wedge starts reminiscing about lost glory. Some pig pen prays, or a parking lot avoids contact with another graduated cylinder. If the gentle sandwich gives lectures on morality to the demon beyond the tornado, then another rattlesnake flies into a rage. A plaintiff is underhandedly frustrating.

Are you calling me fat?

[thatguywhojuggles]

It's Numberwang!!

[Soapy Sam]

Yes.
Maybe.
Or not.
For a particular meaning of "plumbing".

[Fnord]

Are you calling me fat?

Sorry. I don't play Pokemon.

[Lucian]

Sorry. I don't play Pokemon.

In that case, the fleeting snail shall soar in Woonsocket.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Take the sentence - "I did not say he stole the money." Just by changing the word I stress alone, it can mean 5 different things.

I did not say he stole the money

Means someone said it, but it wasn't me.

I did not say he stole the money

A flat denial.

I did not say he stole the money

I might have implied it, but I certainly never said it.

I did not say he stole the money

He may have taken the money, but he didn't steal it.

I did not say he stole the money

He stole something, all right, but it wasn't the money.

You forgot: I did not say he stole the money.

Meaning I said someone stole the money, but not him.

[Soapy Sam]

Accuse the argument. Don't address the issue of who stole it.











This is getting pathologically surreal.

[Andrew Wiggin]

.
Purple.


Green.
Yellow
Red

Just to add some cognitive dissonance to the discussion.

A

[Trent Wray]

If we could only sniff each other's genitals over the internet, communication issues would be solved ...

ETA: in all seriousness, I use a lot of words to say a few things. I've always been very jealous of those who can say in a few words a lot of things. I don't know what it's called ... but it's the "it" factor for communication, as the "stars in the public eye" have their own "it" factor as well.

[DallasDad]

Written or spoken, natural languages are fraught with unavoidable errors. Consider that "There's no such thing as a unicorn" is both syntactically and grammatically correct, even though a semantic analysis is impossible (it asserts a contradiction ... think about it for a bit, and you'll see it).

What, exactly, is the referent when we say "It is raining"? How about "It's nice to have candy"? Can one undefined thing differ in any meaningful way from another undefined thing? Sure, we can easily extract the semantic content from these phrases by substituting other words and generally-accepted meanings, but the sentences themselves are amphigorous per se, even if not by intent or use.

That we can utter such phrases without noticing the inherent nonsense says much about the power and flexibility of our brains, and shows how we use common locutions to stand for entire realms of ideas. It also illustrates the futility of hoping for precision in natural languages. The best we can do is hone our sentences, avoid or explain ambiguities, and hope for the best. The word I speak is not the word you hear, pretty much by definition.

In one of the Dune books (I don't have it to hand), Herbert has one of his characters say something like, "The gift of speech is the gift of lies. Why do you want speech with me?"

Subtle nuances, fine distinctions, and flavors can be shared with natural language, but even a careful writer cannot express exactly what he thinks, nor hope that his listener will garner the same thought back out of the words.

[Andrew Wiggin]

If we could only sniff each other's genitals over the internet, communication issues would be solved ...


For a certain value of 'solved' called we don't communicate. I think the smell of certain other poster's unwashed wobblies would put me off of communication for good, let alone off my lunch.

A

[Cuddles]

On a forum with a primarily social context such as this, the nuances of the written word can be more easily abused without compromising the communications over some locations where technical information is being discussed, and singing from the same page becomes important to get the idea across without too much confusion as to what is being discussed.

I think it can sometimes be exactly the other way around. In a technical discussion, everyone is generally on the same page to start with, so the occasional wrong word can still easily be understood. For example, just yesterday I managed to use the word "extrapolate" several times when I actually meant "interpolate", almost the exact opposite. However, given the context it was used in, everyone knew exactly what I meant, since extrapolating would have made the slightest bit of sense in that context. However, in a more relaxed context, someone who didn't already know a bit about what was being discussed could easily have ended up with a completely wrong impression of what I was really doing.

That's not to say this is always the case, but I think situations can't simply be split into social and technical. It's the little details of the context that govern how much vagueness and abuse of language can be tolerated, and I don't think there's necessarily a trend between those two groups.

[Robin]

I often wonder just how much I really know about what other people are saying in forums like this.

I mean, they use the same words I do. But is the meaning in their brain which they intend to convey to me the same as the meaning I give to what they are saying?

I mean, for example, look at how most of the communication between people is nonverbal, or invective, or stress on certain words, and so on?
Emoticons don't replace these. They have their place, but this is about something deeper.

Take the sentence - "I did not say he stole the money." Just by changing the word I stress alone, it can mean 5 different things.

I did not say he stole the money

Means someone said it, but it wasn't me.

I did not say he stole the money

A flat denial.

I did not say he stole the money

I might have implied it, but I certainly never said it.

I did not say he stole the money

He may have taken the money, but he didn't steal it.

I did not say he stole the money

He stole something, all right, but it wasn't the money.

Sure, someone can italicize words, but how many don't because they assume you're going to understand what they mean?

Then you have to consider how wide or narrow someones definitions are. You all know what I mean. :D It's a huge problem, really when you think about it.

Then you've got tons of other related issues.

How could we come up with an error bar system for conversations, and wouldn't that be interesting?
This should be under philosophy.

But yes, language is the problem. Most of the first half of twentieth century philosophy concentrated on the problem of making language precise.

Since the 1950's philosophy has concentrated on making language unecessarily complicated and vague.

[Garrette]

I think it can sometimes be exactly the other way around. In a technical discussion, everyone is generally on the same page to start with, so the occasional wrong word can still easily be understood. For example, just yesterday I managed to use the word "extrapolate" several times when I actually meant "interpolate", almost the exact opposite. However, given the context it was used in, everyone knew exactly what I meant, since extrapolating would have made the slightest bit of sense in that context. However, in a more relaxed context, someone who didn't already know a bit about what was being discussed could easily have ended up with a completely wrong impression of what I was really doing.

That's not to say this is always the case, but I think situations can't simply be split into social and technical. It's the little details of the context that govern how much vagueness and abuse of language can be tolerated, and I don't think there's necessarily a trend between those two groups.This gets to what I have occasionally said, and is similar to what I think Dr H was getting at above:

When drinkers talk philosophy down the pub, it is boisterous, general, and fun. When scientists debate evidence in the lab, it is specific and stimulating. When the two groups meet, it's broken beer bottles and slide rules in the parking lot.

Difficulty arises when the same poster wears both hats at differing times.

===

And to paraphrase somebody: "Language is absolutely the worst possible form of communication except for all the others. And sex."

[Bodi]

I'm interested in how we even come to understand and use language in the first place.

Isn't it kind of a bootstrap operation?

Every word has to be defined with other words, which are often defined with the first word we are defining and so on. Go get a dictionary and check the words used to define a word and follow these around for a while and you will see what I mean.

[Dr H]

.
If a bowling ball toward a movie theater derives perverse satisfaction from the judge, then the incinerated wedge starts reminiscing about lost glory. Some pig pen prays, or a parking lot avoids contact with another graduated cylinder. If the gentle sandwich gives lectures on morality to the demon beyond the tornado, then another rattlesnake flies into a rage. A plaintiff is underhandedly frustrating.

Y'know, when you put it like that, it seems so obvious.

[Dr H]

<ahem> You mean, "if only all the rest of us were telepathic . . .


:P

See? I knew you were going to do that! :)

[Dr H]

This should be under philosophy.



Hey! Are you trying to start a semantic argument? :mad:

[Dr H]

When drinkers talk philosophy down the pub, it is boisterous, general, and fun. When scientists debate evidence in the lab, it is specific and stimulating. When the two groups meet, it's broken beer bottles and slide rules in the parking lot.


ROTFL!

:wackybiglaugh:


Thanks, I needed that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can handle the mis reads. They are inevitable in any conversation and even more so in written exchanges. What bothers me are the people who claim to know what you said after you clarify something, and they insist they know better what you meant than you did.

If people would recognize the problem, that would go a long way toward better forum communication.

[luchog]

I don't think it's in the wrong sub-forum. I happen to think that the language limitations of a written medium such as an internet forum is relevant to skepticism in general, especially when it comes to the promotion thereof.

I agree that language is important; but more important than long drawn-out discussions of language is simply the adoption of a single, comprehensive standard of communication. The problem is that too many people use idiosyncratic language, or redefine the language to suit themselves; rather than adhering to widely-accepted definitions.

I've seen quite a number of instances (and even been involved in some) where people who might otherwise have agreed (or at least not disagreed vehemently) ended up in arguments simply because one party did not understand what the other party was trying to say. And then think about how many arguments are gotten into over semantics here.
I would agree in general; but I think that more than a few of these arguments are less the result of linguistic limitatations, and more a case of people personalizing an issue, and arguring the person rather than the position, or attempting to obfuscate or evade a point that they are incapable actually addressing.

The latter is particularly common with regards to accusations of "semantics". Whenever you see someone dredge up the "descriptivist" vs. "proscriptivist" debate, their goal is rarely clarity of communication; but rather demonstrating how superior/special they are. Those who truly value clarity of communication are much more likely to argue for a clear, authoritative standard for language. Those who argue in favour of idiosyncratic language are typically much more concerned with being though clever, than with being understood. That's really what the whole Post-Modernist approach to language is based on, promoting an amorphous approach that precludes effective communication. Cleverness over clarity.

A common tactic of woos, and others defending positions for which there is insufficient evidence, is to play word games. Shift the debate to the words themselves, to draw attention away from the weakness of their position and avoid having to address the difficult questions or admit error. Debating the meaning of "is" means that you're no longer debating the truth or falsity of the assertion. Redefining the meaning of "sex" in a way that is substantially different from the mainstream definition, instead of admitting, or falsely denying, having engaged in the activity commonly referred to as "sex".

The problem, if there is one, with English is that, due to its immense flexibility, it lends itself to this sort of manipulation better than other, more rigid Western languages.

But yes, language is the problem. Most of the first half of twentieth century philosophy concentrated on the problem of making language precise.

Since the 1950's philosophy has concentrated on making language unecessarily complicated and vague.
Specifically, the rise of Post-Modernist philosophy in post-war academia, beginning in the 1950s, and culminating in the "Social Revolution" of the late 1960s.
I can handle the mis reads. They are inevitable in any conversation and even more so in written exchanges. What bothers me are the people who claim to know what you said after you clarify something, and they insist they know better what you meant than you did.

If people would recognize the problem, that would go a long way toward better forum communication.
The problem is that people who engage in that sort of deliberate misreading are not interested in clear communication and honest debate. They're only interested in asserting the dominance of their beliefs, and browbeating or shouting down anyone who disagrees.

[Darat]

...snip...

The problem is that people who engage in that sort of deliberate misreading are not interested in clear communication and honest debate. They're only interested in asserting the dominance of their beliefs, and browbeating or shouting down anyone who disagrees.

I've often heard this and I do wonder is if it is true and if so what effect does it have on debates by non-English speakers? Do they tend to avoid this "defintional" problem?

[Robin]

Hey! Are you trying to start a semantic argument? :mad:
I will need a definition for each of those words and the emoticon before I can answer.

[Cuddles]

Every word has to be defined with other words, which are often defined with the first word we are defining and so on. Go get a dictionary and check the words used to define a word and follow these around for a while and you will see what I mean.

Dictionaries are inherently limited because they choose to use only words. Actual people and language do not have the same limitation. A dictionary might only be able to define "table" as "wooden thingy with four legs", and then go on to define "leg" as "thing table has four of"*. A person, however, can simply say "This thing right here."

In the end, it all comes down to pointing and drawing circles in the sand. Everything else is just embellishment.


*For the record, I am in no way involved in writing dictionaries. I have no idea why they wouldn't accept me. But if I were, "thingy" would be a standard word in every dictionary.

[I Ratant]

I think it can sometimes be exactly the other way around. In a technical discussion, everyone is generally on the same page to start with, so the occasional wrong word can still easily be understood. For example, just yesterday I managed to use the word "extrapolate" several times when I actually meant "interpolate", almost the exact opposite. However, given the context it was used in, everyone knew exactly what I meant, since extrapolating would have made the slightest bit of sense in that context. However, in a more relaxed context, someone who didn't already know a bit about what was being discussed could easily have ended up with a completely wrong impression of what I was really doing.

That's not to say this is always the case, but I think situations can't simply be split into social and technical. It's the little details of the context that govern how much vagueness and abuse of language can be tolerated, and I don't think there's necessarily a trend between those two groups.
.
On technical fora, there can be a surprising number of technically illiterate persons trying to finger out technical things, lacking both the requisite vocabulary and the language skills to present their side of the situation.
These people can frequently be booted up to a level where they are singing from the same page, but on social fora, there can be mindsets which prevent illuminating insights into erroneous or fallacious notions, which will be defended to the point of public embarrassment or banishment if taken beyond tolerance.
We gets a lot of those guys here. :(

[I Ratant]

...
When drinkers talk philosophy down the pub, it is boisterous, general, and fun. When scientists debate evidence in the lab, it is specific and stimulating. When the two groups meet, it's broken beer bottles and slide rules in the parking lot.

...
.
Your broken beer bottle trumps my hand-held calculator! :)

[Dr H]

The latter is particularly common with regards to accusations of "semantics". Whenever you see someone dredge up the "descriptivist" vs. "proscriptivist" debate, their goal is rarely clarity of communication; but rather demonstrating how superior/special they are. Those who truly value clarity of communication are much more likely to argue for a clear, authoritative standard for language. Those who argue in favour of idiosyncratic language are typically much more concerned with being though clever, than with being understood. That's really what the whole Post-Modernist approach to language is based on, promoting an amorphous approach that precludes effective communication. Cleverness over clarity.

Of course that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's necessarily a universal description of the issue, by any means. Jargon, for example, could certainly be considered "idiosyncratic language", and yet jargon is developed for a reason. Certainly the reason can sometimes be obfuscation, for purposes of identifying members of the "in" group. But the reason can also be to facilitate communication in a technical field, or on a technical topic.

A case in point that I see all the time is a paranormalist having a discussion with a scientist into which the word "energy" gets inserted. The scientist has a very clear, precise definition of what "energy" means -- in science. The paranormalist, more often than not, is using a more colloquial definition, coupled with their own jargon. The two go back and forth using the same term, but meaning different things by it, and accusing each other of not understanding what the term means.

I don' t think this is always, or even often, being done simply so that one party can one-up the other on the audience "cleverness scale". Rather, it frequently seems to be a genuine cognitive disconnect between two parties who entered a conversation with certain expectations, have had those expectations thwarted, and don't really understand why. It's all well and good to argue for a "clear, authoritative standard" for language, but what's really needed in a case like this is for the parties to explore -- in advance -- key terms like "energy," and either come up with a mutually-agreeable compromise definition for the duration of the discussion, or else agree upon less controversial alternate terms.

In other words, it's not necessary to reinvent language and communication before you can have a discussion which minimizes the frictions of idiosyncratic language. It's often sufficient to simply agree to a few points for the sake of argument.

We could, for example, agree that for purposes of a particular thread we will understand that, in the context of that thread, "beer" means "Guinness". That avoids at the onset sidetrack discussions about whether saki or chicha should be considered beer, but doesn't in any way modify the larger definition outside of that thread, nor prevent the use of a more generic definition of "beer' in other threads and other contexts. We all know that "beer" and "Guinness" are not synonymous, but we can agree, temporarily, that they are for this one discussion.

But if that agreement doesn't happen at the top of the argument, you are assuredly going to see the discussion sidetracked at some point over basic definitional issues.

A common tactic of woos, and others defending positions for which there is insufficient evidence, is to play word games. Shift the debate to the words themselves, to draw attention away from the weakness of their position and avoid having to address the difficult questions or admit error.

Yes, but a little preliminary discussion of terms can help to avoid a lot of that sort of shifting of the goal posts. I've found out myself that if I try to get a woo to pin down a particular definition too late in the argument, that I get accused of "playing word games." Because of that I've learned to move any definitional discussion as close to the start of the debate as possible.

With woo's, of course, you can't always be sure that they'll stick with agreed definitions throughout the discussion -- sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, and old habits die hard.
But some woos, at least, have proven to be somewhat trainable. :)


The problem is that people who engage in that sort of deliberate misreading are not interested in clear communication and honest debate. They're only interested in asserting the dominance of their beliefs, and browbeating or shouting down anyone who disagrees.

Sure -- the language of evangelism. Arguing with an evangelist is usually not very intellectually stimulating, but it can sometimes be enjoyable on a baser level. ;)

[Dr H]

Hey! Are you trying to start a semantic argument? :mad:

I will need a definition for each of those words and the emoticon before I can answer.

Easily done:

*Hey = what horses eat
*Are = belonging to us
*you = the joint which connects your drive shaft to your transmission
*to = 1 + 1
*start = the button you click on when you're ready to stop using Windows(tm)
*a = one less than "to"
*semantic = a software company specializing in antivirus protection
*argument = what you came here for
*emoticon = what emoticon?

Okay, now that we're agreed on terms, have at it! ;)

[I Ratant]

...
*argument = what you came here for
...
.
2broad a use of u!
Some come here for abuse! :)

[shadron]

Two rights make a wrong: "Yeah, suuuuurrre!"

[luchog]

I've often heard this and I do wonder is if it is true and if so what effect does it have on debates by non-English speakers? Do they tend to avoid this "defintional" problem?

Obviously allowances have to be made for non-native speakers, since there will always be difficulties in translation and in understanding a foreign idiom. Unless of course those non-native speakers claim to be more knowledgible about the language than native speakers; in which case all bets, and gloves, are off. :)

With one notable exception, I rarely see non-native speakers on this forum get into the sort of semantic quibbling over the definition of "is" that is intended to forestall debate, rather than clarify terms. Most often it's a simple, brief exchange to establish the meaning of a term they're unfamiliar with, and the argument returns to the actual subject at hand.

[luchog]

Of course that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's necessarily a universal description of the issue, by any means. Jargon, for example, could certainly be considered "idiosyncratic language", and yet jargon is developed for a reason. Certainly the reason can sometimes be obfuscation, for purposes of identifying members of the "in" group. But the reason can also be to facilitate communication in a technical field, or on a technical topic.

I believe that there's a huge difference between jargon and technical language. The latter is obviously required in order to discuss specialized fields of knowledge, where single terms stand in for concepts that would require pages, if not books, of more simple language to define. Technical language can cause problems in communication similar to non-native speakers, and is not something that is easily remedied without a great deal of education in many cases. Attempts at clarification of terms can end up being even more confusing if one side lacks sufficient education or experience to understand. (And it's one case where appeal to authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy.)

Jargon is a different matter, as the phenomenon itself is rather more complicated than that of technical language. Jargon is created for one of three reasons: to create effective communication shortcuts for members of a group (eg. military personnel, participants in a particular research project, etc.); to prevent understanding by those outside the group (eg. "theives' cant" and slang); to obfuscate meaning in order create an particular image or effect, seperating group members from non-members (religious/cult terminology, sports terminology, secret society signs, etc.).

A case in point that I see all the time is a paranormalist having a discussion with a scientist into which the word "energy" gets inserted. The scientist has a very clear, precise definition of what "energy" means -- in science. The paranormalist, more often than not, is using a more colloquial definition, coupled with their own jargon. The two go back and forth using the same term, but meaning different things by it, and accusing each other of not understanding what the term means.

You've explained the difference yourself, though. As you noted, the scientist uses a word with a precise, standardized, widely-accepted definition that is readily accessible. The paranormalist is using an idiosyncratic definition that may not match that of another paranormalist; in an attempt to create an impression of knowledge, which is in actuality unsupported by actual fact.

I don' t think this is always, or even often, being done simply so that one party can one-up the other on the audience "cleverness scale".

In the case of sCAM, paranormalists, etc. it most definitely is. It's a way of making the psychic, chiropractor, ghost hunter, reiki practitioner, etc. appear to have knowledge and understanding of a particular phenomenon, without any actual factual basis for that knowledge, or even the existence of the claimed phenomenon. Re-defining or coining terms allow them to use words in such a way as to imply a legitimacy which they do not have actual evidence to support. They can only define their idiosyncratic language in terms of even more idiosyncratic language; otherwise their assertions fall apart on their face.

Rather, it frequently seems to be a genuine cognitive disconnect between two parties who entered a conversation with certain expectations, have had those expectations thwarted, and don't really understand why. It's all well and good to argue for a "clear, authoritative standard" for language, but what's really needed in a case like this is for the parties to explore -- in advance -- key terms like "energy," and either come up with a mutually-agreeable compromise definition for the duration of the discussion, or else agree upon less controversial alternate terms.

But, you see, that is precisely what the users of idiosyncratic language are trying to avoid. Paranormalists don't want to have to define their terms to scientific standards. In fact, they often stridently avoid doing so, as this would point up the weakness of their own position. What they want to do is achieve the appearance of knowledge, without the burden of proof. The goal is to have people accept the language without looking to closely at the actual meanings of the words; and thus accept the assertions without having to look to closely at the actual substance of the claims.

When a paranormalist speaks of "chi energy", he simply wants others to accept that there is such a thing as "chi" and that it's somehow related to the the quality known as "life". Defining what is meant by "chi" in a precise and meaningful way would require proving that such a thing exists, or at least demonstrating how it fits into established, repeatable phenomeological observation. This is bolstered by the fact that when challenged for such precise definitions, the paranormalists will simply claim that such a thing is "beyond understanding for those insist on trying to fit the world into neat little boxes" -- eg. rationalists. Challenging the purveyors of "quantum healing crystals" to explain how their product fits into the quantum mechanics model will inevitably result in either more idiosyncratic gibberish; or accusations that the questioner is attempting to "repress" the knowledge throught he use of "rigid technical jargon" that doesn't apply.

It is precisely this vagueness and lack of clarity that the woos depend on, and craft their language to promulgate. Ultimately, their final argument is some variation of "you have to have faith in it to experience it" which is simply an appeal for unquestioning acceptance of an unproven assertion.

In other words, it's not necessary to reinvent language and communication before you can have a discussion which minimizes the frictions of idiosyncratic language. It's often sufficient to simply agree to a few points for the sake of argument.

But that is not what sematic quibbling does. It doesn't create a common point of reference; but rather obscures commonality to evade the crux of the argument. Why use an idiosyncratic definition of "sex", a word with a well-establish meaning in standard usage, if one is not attempting to avoid having to admit having had sex? The entire purpose of such quibbling over such basic terminology is solely and entirely for the purpose of evasion and obfuscation, not clarity. There is a clear, standard definition of "sex", and there is a clear, standard definition of "is". To re-define either serves no useful purpose. It is done merely to avoid having to admit error or being caught in a lie.

We could, for example, agree that for purposes of a particular thread we will understand that, in the context of that thread, "beer" means "Guinness". That avoids at the onset sidetrack discussions about whether saki or chicha should be considered beer, but doesn't in any way modify the larger definition outside of that thread, nor prevent the use of a more generic definition of "beer' in other threads and other contexts. We all know that "beer" and "Guinness" are not synonymous, but we can agree, temporarily, that they are for this one discussion.

We could, but that would create problems for extending the discussion, and applying it outside a very narrow framework. It would be far more effective communication to use the specific standard term "Guinness", so that everyone readily understands what is being referred to, rather than have to re-invent the wheel every single time by re-defining the world "beer" every time the context changes.

But if that agreement doesn't happen at the top of the argument, you are assuredly going to see the discussion sidetracked at some point over basic definitional issues.

Which, again, wouldn't happen if people used precise, clear, standard language.

Yes, but a little preliminary discussion of terms can help to avoid a lot of that sort of shifting of the goal posts. I've found out myself that if I try to get a woo to pin down a particular definition too late in the argument, that I get accused of "playing word games." Because of that I've learned to move any definitional discussion as close to the start of the debate as possible.

But my point is that the shifting of goal posts is precisely why woos engage in that sort of linguistic fiddling. They accuse others of "playing word games" because that is exactly what they are doing.

With woo's, of course, you can't always be sure that they'll stick with agreed definitions throughout the discussion -- sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, and old habits die hard.
But some woos, at least, have proven to be somewhat trainable. :)

But if they are truly open to questioning their own claims; the trainable woos rarely remain woos for very long. :) It's the unquestioning ones that are the issue.

[Robin]

Easily done:

*Hey = what horses eat
*Are = belonging to us
*you = the joint which connects your drive shaft to your transmission
*to = 1 + 1
*start = the button you click on when you're ready to stop using Windows(tm)
*a = one less than "to"
*semantic = a software company specializing in antivirus protection
*argument = what you came here for
*emoticon = what emoticon?

Okay, now that we're agreed on terms, have at it! ;)
In that case the answer is yes.

[Bodi]

I have been wracking my brain in an attempt to come to terms with with the fact that I both agree with and strongly disagree with (certain points of) each side of this whole WOO/SKEPTIC thing.

Definitions. That keeps rumbling. Someone please give me a clear, concise definition of woo.

One that's genuine and not intelligent-butt, please.

[tesscaline]

I have been wracking my brain in an attempt to come to terms with with the fact that I both agree with and strongly disagree with (certain points of) each side of this whole WOO/SKEPTIC thing.

Definitions. That keeps rumbling. Someone please give me a clear, concise definition of woo.

One that's genuine and not intelligent-butt, please."woo" is a slang term that gets thrown around at a lot of things, generally anyone or anything that is directly contrary to skepticism and/or science. You're not going to get a "clear, concise" definition of it because the meaning of the word varies depending on who is using it and in what context.

For example, I don't believe in god, or conventional religion. These things, to me, are "woo". People who believe in them are also "woo". Anyone who believes in, promotes, or practices homeopathy is also, to me, woo. Homeopathy itself is woo. Chiropractors are woo peddlers, and the people who believe in chiropractic treatment are also woo.

You see, it's a catch-all sort of term. A label for the opposition, whoever (or whatever) the opposition might be.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have been wracking my brain in an attempt to come to terms with with the fact that I both agree with and strongly disagree with (certain points of) each side of this whole WOO/SKEPTIC thing.

Definitions. That keeps rumbling. Someone please give me a clear, concise definition of woo.

One that's genuine and not intelligent-butt, please.Woo is slang for non-scientific evidence based beliefs.

People might argue that their particular skeptic blind spot like god beliefs or AGW doesn't fall into the category of woo, but the definition remains the same.

[Bodi]

Woo is slang for non-scientific evidence based beliefs.

Like love?

Is love 'woo'?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Like love?

Is love 'woo'?Like it or not, there is a scientific explanation for love. Love is not a magical concept.

[Bodi]

That's not what I asked....

[Bodi]

well, ok. maybe it is. There's a scientific explanation for love?

It isn't?

[Soapy Sam]

Love is a verifiable fact. There are no woo facts. That's part of what defines "woo".
It can be explained in woo terms or in terms of natural selection.
Both explanations could be wrong, but the woo explanation would be both wrong and woo, whereas the nat sel one could be logical, testable and wrong, but not woo because not based on woo suppositions.

[Bodi]

Love is a verifiable fact

I'm not so sure that it is. How does one verify love as a fact? If someone says that they love someone, all you have to go by is their word.

[Bodi]

Besides, the only thing stated by yourself and ginger is that its explainable. That's jumping too far ahead.

I want a proof that it even exists before I'll listen to any explanations of what it is.

[I Ratant]

Woo is what is pitched to get in her pants.
It's also pitched to get in your wallet.

[Bodi]

Woo is what is pitched to get in her pants.
It's also pitched to get in your wallet.

So.. romance is woo
business is woo

[Bodi]

Well, while I wait for a response on that, lets go back a bit and pick on luchog.

I believe that there's a huge difference between jargon and technical language. The latter is obviously required in order to discuss specialized fields of knowledge, where single terms stand in for concepts that would require pages, if not books, of more simple language to define.

So, it's a shortcut to avoid having to reiterate all that stuff, huh?

Jargon is created for one of three reasons: ...to create effective communication shortcuts for members of a group (eg. military personnel, participants in a particular research project, etc...

Whats the difference again?

Now, since you choose to strawman and misrepresent chi ... let me ask you this: How much do you really know about the idea/concept? Know anything about the martial art of aikido and what's your opinion on that?

And while we're on THAT subject, what makes you think that chi is a 'paranormalist' idea in the first place?

Also, what the heck is a 'paranormalist'?

[TX50]

We should all go back to writing in Latin. English is far too ambiguous! ;)

[I Ratant]

So.. romance is woo
business is woo
.
A literalist I see.
I won't waste our mutual time any further.

[Bodi]

No. I'm not a literalist. I'm trying to clarify the point this whole thread is about.

In order to not be a literalist, one cannot rely on reason and logic alone. One must have an intuitive perception and understanding, as well.

Reading between the lines, so to speak.

Of course, the Skeptic cannot concede that intuition is valid and necessary to understanding, because that threatens the entire Skeptic worldview.

I think you understand the point, see where this is going, and are bowing out to save face.

[tesscaline]

I'm trying to clarify the point this whole thread is about. No you're not. The thread is about language in general -- you wrote the OP, you should know this -- not the precise definition of "woo" or "love".

In order to not be a literalist, one cannot rely on reason and logic alone. One must have an intuitive perception and understanding, as well.Can you define "intuitive perception and understanding", and explain how it relates to the use of language to communicate ideas on an internet forum?


Of course, the Skeptic cannot concede that intuition is valid and necessary to understanding, because that threatens the entire Skeptic worldview. Really? How about if you define "intuition" first, because how you are using the word may differ from how others here use the word.

I think you understand the point, see where this is going, and are bowing out to save face.I think that perhaps that's not the case at all. I think you are moving goal posts in order to further your own agenda and people are realizing this and refusing to participate in such game playing because it is a non-constructive endeavor.

[I Ratant]

Shuckens!
Check out Heinleins "true witness".. when asked what color that horse, the TW must respond... "The visible side is black (or whatever color is visible) and will make no wild ass guess about the other side.

[Dr H]

.
2broad a use of u!
Some come here for abuse! :)

Down the hall, third door on the left.

[RSLancastr]

.
If a bowling ball toward a movie theater derives perverse satisfaction from the judge, then the incinerated wedge starts reminiscing about lost glory. Some pig pen prays, or a parking lot avoids contact with another graduated cylinder. If the gentle sandwich gives lectures on morality to the demon beyond the tornado, then another rattlesnake flies into a rage. A plaintiff is underhandedly frustrating.Written via Racter?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Shuckens!
Check out Heinleins "true witness".. when asked what color that horse, the TW must respond... "The visible side is black (or whatever color is visible) and will make no wild ass guess about the other side.

What sort of wild ass has two sides that we can see at the same time? Perhaps a mirror would help...:)

[Dr H]

I believe that there's a huge difference between jargon and technical language. The latter is obviously required in order to discuss specialized fields of knowledge, where single terms stand in for concepts that would require pages, if not books, of more simple language to define. [...]

Jargon is a different matter, as the phenomenon itself is rather more complicated than that of technical language. Jargon is created for one of three reasons: to create effective communication shortcuts for members of a group (eg. military personnel, participants in a particular research project, etc.)[...]

To me, those look like essentially the same thing. I would argue (semantically, in fact :) ) that although 'jargon' can serve any of the three functions you mention, in all three cases it is in fact functioning as "technical language". The fact that a particular field finds it expedient to develop it's own terms and syntax says nothing about whether the field is a valid epistemology or other subject. All it says is that people in any specific field of discussion will tend to develop verbal short-cuts, for the precise reasons you give above -- it creates more effective communication among members of the group, who can be expected to have a certain shared background of concepts, such that nothing is lost by the abbreviation.

You've explained the difference yourself, though. As you noted, the scientist uses a word with a precise, standardized, widely-accepted definition that is readily accessible. The paranormalist is using an idiosyncratic definition that may not match that of another paranormalist; in an attempt to create an impression of knowledge, which is in actuality unsupported by actual fact.

That may well be true in many cases, but it is decidedly not true in all cases. Many paranormalists do share a lot of jargon in common (listen to some of the conversations on George Noorey's "Coast-to-Coast"). And scientific terms are sometimes defined differently, depending on one's particular branch of science ("current," for example, is going to mean something different to a physicist, an electrical engineer, and an oceanographer).

In fact, all of the variant definitions are more or less "readily accessible," in that they can be looked up in an appropriate reference -- the same is true of paranormalist jargon: there are dictionaries of paranormal jargon, and I've not found them to differ in the definition of particular terms any more than any two ordinary dictionaries.

In a perfect world, I suppose that anyone involved in a discussion that seemed to be turning around the meaning of a particular term or terms would hie off and look up said terms, to discover if there was some other meaning than the one they had in mind. Instead, verbal combatants seem to usually find it simpler to either ask the other party to explain what they mean, or to simply assume that the other party doesn't know what the key term means.

In the case of sCAM, paranormalists, etc. it most definitely is. It's a way of making the psychic, chiropractor, ghost hunter, reiki practitioner, etc. appear to have knowledge and understanding of a particular phenomenon, without any actual factual basis for that knowledge, or even the existence of the claimed phenomenon. Re-defining or coining terms allow them to use words in such a way as to imply a legitimacy which they do not have actual evidence to support. They can only define their idiosyncratic language in terms of even more idiosyncratic language; otherwise their assertions fall apart on their face.

What you say is partly true: the psuedo-scientist or the psuedo-doctor using jargon borrowed from science, or words coined to sound as if they belonged to science, to give an aura of scientific respectability to their hoax. But to some extent, even they have to have some consistancy, or risk being exposed as frauds. Chiropractors, for example, all share a good deal of jargon upon which terms they tend to agree as to meaning. If they didn't, even a dim bulb who went to three different chiro's and heard the same term used to mean three completely different things, might figure out that he was being conned.

But, you see, that is precisely what the users of idiosyncratic language are trying to avoid. Paranormalists don't want to have to define their terms to scientific standards. In fact, they often stridently avoid doing so, as this would point up the weakness of their own position. What they want to do is achieve the appearance of knowledge, without the burden of proof. The goal is to have people accept the language without looking to closely at the actual meanings of the words; and thus accept the assertions without having to look to closely at the actual substance of the claims.

Again, I think that is partly true. It assumes, however, that all paranormalists are deliberate hoaxters, and also conscious of the hoax. This is not the case. Some people really believe the particular paranormal "ism" they've latched onto. They develop jargon for the same reason biologists or engineers develop jargon -- to expedite communication with others in their field.

When an astrologer says "the moon in in the seventh house," yes, that's meant to impress the rube with the astrologer's supposedly esoteric knowledge. But when an astrologer says that to another astrologer, he doesn't have to explain that "house" means something other than "four walls and a roof of wood-frame construction, that people live in."

When a paranormalist speaks of "chi energy", he simply wants others to accept that there is such a thing as "chi" and that it's somehow related to the the quality known as "life". Defining what is meant by "chi" in a precise and meaningful way would require proving that such a thing exists, or at least demonstrating how it fits into established, repeatable phenomeological observation. This is bolstered by the fact that when challenged for such precise definitions, the paranormalists will simply claim that such a thing is "beyond understanding for those insist on trying to fit the world into neat little boxes" -- eg. rationalists.

My experience with paranormalists seems to cover a broader territory than that. I've interacted with plenty who seemed genuinely interested in having me understand what they were trying to say. To use the astrology example, I've had astrologers take great pains to explain what "the moon is in the seventh house" means in layman's terms. The fact that such explanation doesn't actually illuminate any real phenomenon is irrelevant: the explanation tells me what they mean by the term they're using, and to that extent facilitates further conversation.

Challenging the purveyors of "quantum healing crystals" to explain how their product fits into the quantum mechanics model will inevitably result in either more idiosyncratic gibberish; or accusations that the questioner is attempting to "repress" the knowledge throught he use of "rigid technical jargon" that doesn't apply.

In that example, I agree. The bit of technical jargon that doesn't apply, however, is "quantum."

I try to come at these sorts of things from a position of knowledge. That is, if I am going to suggest to a crystal-healer that they might want to learn a bit more about what quantum mechanics actually is, I try to do it after learning as much as I can about the rituals and claims of crystal healing. With that approach I cannot be legitimately accused of speaking in ignorance of their field, and one of their excuses for not following my suggestion evaporates.

It is precisely this vagueness and lack of clarity that the woos depend on, and craft their language to promulgate. Ultimately, their final argument is some variation of "you have to have faith in it to experience it" which is simply an appeal for unquestioning acceptance of an unproven assertion.

Yes, to a point. But some people honestly don't seem to realize that their concepts or definitions are vague or fuzzy. Sloppy thinking is a nasty habit, and a hard one to put off. As the saying goes, 'first one has to admit that one has a problem.'

But that is not what sematic quibbling does.

Of course there is such a thing as "semantic quibbling," but that's not the issue I think the OP was trying to address. Some semantic discussions are necessary; others are superfluous. But the same could be said for a number of other things, all the way from the evolution of language to punctuation. In the larger scheme of things punctuation seems like a pretty minor point; a quibble. Yet

. This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

and

. This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

...have considerably different meanings, and one would be justified in asking for clarification.



It doesn't create a common point of reference; but rather obscures commonality to evade the crux of the argument. Why use an idiosyncratic definition of "sex", a word with a well-establish meaning in standard usage, if one is not attempting to avoid having to admit having had sex? The entire purpose of such quibbling over such basic terminology is solely and entirely for the purpose of evasion and obfuscation, not clarity. There is a clear, standard definition of "sex", and there is a clear, standard definition of "is". To re-define either serves no useful purpose. It is done merely to avoid having to admit error or being caught in a lie.

Agreed, in that example. However, you are referencing a situation in which the definition truly would be idiosyncratic, in that it's the definition of an individual person at an individual point in time. Individual idiosyncratic definitions would certainly tend to hinder communication, rather than facilitate it. Arguably, most jargon probably originated as one person's particular idiosyncratic term which, thanks to shared experience, other people picked up on and started using. But the key point is that jargon is shared among more than one person.

My argument is not that we should have to redefine the language before we can embark on any meaningful discussion. In fact, as I said, I'm arguing essentially the opposite of that: that if we take care to agree on the general meaning of key terms up front, it saves a whole lot of semantic jabbering later on.

We could, but that would create problems for extending the discussion, and applying it outside a very narrow framework. It would be far more effective communication to use the specific standard term "Guinness", so that everyone readily understands what is being referred to, rather than have to re-invent the wheel every single time by re-defining the world "beer" every time the context changes.

It might be expedient for purposes of an extended discussion about Guinness Stout to not have to write (or say) "Guinness Stout" each and every time we refer to it, when we can agree that the diminutive "beer" will serve for present purposes. Nor does that agreement mean that we necessarily have to re-define "beer" at the begining of every other subsequent discussion about beer, because it is not always going to be a key term in every discussion.

Your argument for standardization is a noble idea, but virtually impossible, really. To continue with the present example, you propose "Guinness" as a standard term, but how do I know whether you're talking about the beer, the brewery, or the world-records' book? There are very few words that have one, and only one meaning.

To take an earlier example, even "energy" could mean "the capacity for being active" , "effort," or "vigorous exertion". But those are not the first things that are going to occur to a scientist engaged in a discussion peppered with additional terms like "quantum" or "gravity". If what is meant by "energy" is "the power to do work," then it's easy enough to say so at the begining and get everyone to sign off on that definition for the duration.

The discussion of "chi" is then at least not going to get bogged down over whether one party or the other really understands what "energy" is, but can procede to whether it's possible to demonstrate that "chi" can do any actual work -- which last term I would probably also want to define up front.


But if they are truly open to questioning their own claims; the trainable woos rarely remain woos for very long. :) It's the unquestioning ones that are the issue.

The mystery of it is, some of them do. I'm thinking of some religious types I know who, engaged in apologetics are continually questioning their own claims. And as continually inventing new and more elaborate arguments for hanging on to them.

[Dr H]

In that case the answer is yes.

I forgot what the question was. :(

[Dr H]

No. I'm not a literalist. I'm trying to clarify the point this whole thread is about.

In order to not be a literalist, one cannot rely on reason and logic alone. One must have an intuitive perception and understanding, as well.

Reading between the lines, so to speak.

Of course, the Skeptic cannot concede that intuition is valid and necessary to understanding, because that threatens the entire Skeptic worldview.

I think you understand the point, see where this is going, and are bowing out to save face.

"Intuition" is simply the bringing to bear of information not directly concerned with the topic at hand on the topic at hand, sometimes subconsciously. There is nothing magical about it, nor does it in any way threaten a skeptical worldview. It is probably worth pointing out that intuition is also frequently wrong.

[RSLancastr]

Of course, the Skeptic cannot concede that intuition is valid and necessary to understanding, because that threatens the entire Skeptic worldview.
And, of course, orange is purple.

[Loss Leader]

Woohoo! Semiotics! Is there anything less microphone scissors?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not so sure that it is. How does one verify love as a fact? If someone says that they love someone, all you have to go by is their word.This is so typical of people already convinced concepts like love are actual things. These words represent abstract concepts with a basis in reality. But as you are using the word, there is no such thing.

The basis of love, good, evil, beauty, and so on is the biological real world we live in. These concepts have no meaning as real independent actual things. They only have meaning as descriptions of real behaviors that have real biological and psychological bases.

I can make up a word and claim it is a thing. Can you prove unobtanium exists? Can you prove it doesn't? I made it up. I can use the thing I made up and say what it is. That doesn't make it a real thing. I can say it's the concept of some perfect element that has some quality the elements we are familiar with do not have. Now it is a concept about something in the real world. But unobtanium doesn't come into existence because I magically describe it as some nebulous thing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So.. romance is woo...Actually, pitching woo, has a different meaning when applied to romance than the way we use the word, woo, around here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

In order to not be a literalist, one cannot rely on reason and logic alone. One must have an intuitive perception and understanding, as well. Another common mistake that the brain thinks magically. Intuition is the nearly instantaneous processing of a lot of data or stimuli like what we see, hear and smell. It isn't some magical process. If you study brain biology you'll find there are many functions which occur so fast things like the calculations which go into an assessment you call intuition, occur without our conscious awareness.

....Of course, the Skeptic cannot concede that intuition is valid and necessary to understanding, because that threatens the entire Skeptic worldview. No, it certainly does not. It demonstrates how utterly fantastic the brain is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... It is probably worth pointing out that intuition is also frequently wrong.When the basis for your conclusions are faulty, intuition is going to be faulty. That's why so many people believe personal experiences are evidence of all sorts of things they are not evidence of.

But if you are really good at something, then intuition can be very accurate. I can tell you when someone is about to faint after I give them a shot. I know the cues. It's not magical intuition, it's years of experience intuition.

[luchog]

Well, while I wait for a response on that, lets go back a bit and pick on luchog.

So, it's a shortcut to avoid having to reiterate all that stuff, huh?

Whats the difference again?

Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking, since I already answered those questions. I'll attempt to do so again, in more simplified language.

Technical language is not a "shortcut" in the way that jargon is. Technical language consists primarily of giving specific, standardized names to things that ordinarily lack names, or have a wide variety of names. A very simple example is the giving of names to mathematical functions. One can refer to a "commutative property", "distributive property", or "associative property" and another mathemetician will easily understand that these terms refer to concepts that would require pages of mathematics to adequately explicate. Another example would be the language of taxonomy, using specific, standardized Latin words to refer to an entity which many have a dozen or more common names. Take the Hibiscus. This name is most commonly used for "Hibiscus sabdariffa". However, it is also used to refer to about 200 other related plants. Using the term "Hibiscus sabdariffa" will enable with even a passingknowlege of taxonomy will understand you are referring to a specific species of flowering perennials, even if they don't know specifically which one. A species which is are also commonly referred to as "sorrel", "rosemallow", "jamaica", "roselle", "Rose of Sharon", etc. "Rose of Sharon can also refer to "Hypericum calycinum"; "sorrel" also refers to the unrelated genus "Rumex"; and "roselle" is commonly used for a wide number of unrelated flowers.

By contrast, jargon comes in two forms. The most useful is a shorthand typically formed by abbreviations and acronyms which stand in for much longer terms, thus enabling a quicker, more efficient form of communication. This is particularly common to time-sensitive situations; typified by the military and emergency medicine. The other form is obfuscatory, intended to either hide what is really being said from outsiders; or to give the speaker an air of superior knowledge. The latter form is common among esoteric religions and cults, as well as bureacracies. The oldest form is "thieves' cant", a collection of coded terms used to discuss potentially unlawful actvities openly, without tipping off potential victims or law enforcement. Corporate managers are fond of using terms like "core competencies", "rightsizing", "baked in", "circle back around", "champion", "proactive", and "mission statement"; despite the fact that these terms not only do not convey any more information than plain language would, but are often gibberish in and of themselves.

Another major difference between technical language and jargon is that the former is rigidly codified and standarized; and easily learned by anyone using standard references; whereas jargon is highly mutable and context-dependent.

Now, since you choose to strawman and misrepresent chi ... let me ask you this: How much do you really know about the idea/concept?

More than the vast majority of those who use the term in a martial arts context. The term "chi" (aka "qi" or "ki") literally translates as "air", "breath", or "gas"; with the Chinese idiogram composed of "steam rising from cooking rice". It was originally a religious term referring to the "life force" that quickens all living things; and is congruent with the western "elan vital" or the "humours" of Galenic medicine, and the Hindu "prana". The meaning of the term varied widely throughout history, and could mean anything from a general, all-pervading "energy" of supernatural substance, to an actual physical substance which flowed through regular channels in the body and could be controlled and diverted. Claims of chi utility range from an inaccessible all-pervading force, to enhancement of ordinary physical acts, to providing psi powers such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind-control ("The Force" from George Lucas' Star Wars movies is based on some variants of chi).

In a martial arts context, the term is most often a hybrid; and refers to a channelable "life energy" which can originate entirely within one's body, or be drawn from the environment; and which can be used to enhance physical strength and speed, and possibly provide the aforementioned psi powers. A few modern practitioners use it as an archaism to refer to conscious observation and control of the semi-autonomous processes of breathing, balance, and movement.

Know anything about the martial art of aikido and what's your opinion on that?

I have a friend who is a nationally-ranked practitioner and trainer. Aikido is a synthetic martial art with strong similarties to Tai Chi; which comes in two main forms: a soft, "spiritual" form analagous to Tai Chi's slow form; and a hard, physical form analagous to fast form Tai Chi. The soft form is highly ritualized, focuses strongly on meditation and woo concepts like "ki"; and is pursued predominantly as an avenue of "spiritual growth" and physical fitness, much like Yoga. The hard form is concerned primarily with control of balance, leverage, and inertia to maximize the ability to restrain or incapacitate an opponent while minimizing personal risk of injury; and is similar to Jujutsu (from which it is partially derived) and Jeet Kune Do.


And while we're on THAT subject, what makes you think that chi is a 'paranormalist' idea in the first place?

Its origins in Taoism, and use to refer to phenomena for which there is no verifiable empirical evidence.

Also, what the heck is a 'paranormalist'?
Someone who believes in, and is an advocate for, ostensibly observable phenomena for which there is no unambiguous and verifiable empirical evidence -- such as "chi", "psi", yogic flying, dowsing, ghosts, etc. -- for which there are multiple contradictory explanations given.

[luchog]

That may well be true in many cases, but it is decidedly not true in all cases. Many paranormalists do share a lot of jargon in common (listen to some of the conversations on George Noorey's "Coast-to-Coast"). And scientific terms are sometimes defined differently, depending on one's particular branch of science ("current," for example, is going to mean something different to a physicist, an electrical engineer, and an oceanographer).

I've already addressed the differences between technical language and jargon in another post.

In fact, all of the variant definitions are more or less "readily accessible," in that they can be looked up in an appropriate reference -- the same is true of paranormalist jargon: there are dictionaries of paranormal jargon, and I've not found them to differ in the definition of particular terms any more than any two ordinary dictionaries.

Not true. There are a myriad of references for both technical pursuits and paranormal ones. The former will use identical definitions for terms, based on standard references. The latter may have some similarities with others in their particular "school"; but will typically vary widely throughout the field. Just look at the differences between UFOlogists. There is no concensus in the field about whether extraterrestrials are purely physical beings like we are, just with better technology; advanced beings who have transcended physical forms; or supernatural entities choosing to manifest in physical or quasi-physical forms. There is also a huge diversity in claims about the origins and goals of said entities. The language used by the vast majority of UFO groups is similar; but the meanings of the terms used vary widely depending on the beliefs of a particular group of believers.

This is most evident in esoteric religions and cults. Exactly the same language will be used for (proselytizing) outsiders, recruits, and initiates; but the terms given new, often contradictory, meanings to seperate the inner circles from the outer.

In a perfect world, I suppose that anyone involved in a discussion that seemed to be turning around the meaning of a particular term or terms would hie off and look up said terms, to discover if there was some other meaning than the one they had in mind. Instead, verbal combatants seem to usually find it simpler to either ask the other party to explain what they mean, or to simply assume that the other party doesn't know what the key term means.

In a perfect world, everyone would think like me. :D

More seriously, in a perfect world, people would use clear, unambiguous language; and not engage in logical fallacies. Humans, however, are far from perfect.

What you say is partly true: the psuedo-scientist or the psuedo-doctor using jargon borrowed from science, or words coined to sound as if they belonged to science, to give an aura of scientific respectability to their hoax. But to some extent, even they have to have some consistancy, or risk being exposed as frauds. Chiropractors, for example, all share a good deal of jargon upon which terms they tend to agree as to meaning. If they didn't, even a dim bulb who went to three different chiro's and heard the same term used to mean three completely different things, might figure out that he was being conned.

There is some consistency with scientific terms; but this is more with the popular conception of scientific terminology, rather than the actual meaning of the terms. And even then, there is a huge variation in how many of these terms are used; the most obvious example being "quantum", which meaning morphs to fit the desires of the particular woo, and which does not correspond in any way to the standard, scientific meaning.

And it's really disturbing how much inconsistency you can get away with, before people will not just realize, but admit to themselves, that they've been conned. Look up confirmation bias, the "Forer Effect", subjective validation, the base rate fallacy, loss aversion, and plain old cognitive dissonance.

My experience with paranormalists seems to cover a broader territory than that. I've interacted with plenty who seemed genuinely interested in having me understand what they were trying to say.

As have I; but they're typically not able to explain what they mean, because they don't understand it themselves. They're simply parrotting another source, without truly understanding the meanings of the terms they're using. Many times, they use them differently than those same terms were used by the source they believe they're quoting (particularly common when paranormalists quote scientific sources). Again, they simply want you to accept what they say, without having to go through the effort of providing unassailable evidence.

To use the astrology example, I've had astrologers take great pains to explain what "the moon is in the seventh house" means in layman's terms. The fact that such explanation doesn't actually illuminate any real phenomenon is irrelevant: the explanation tells me what they mean by the term they're using, and to that extent facilitates further conversation.

I would disagree that it facilitates communication, since they're still not communicating anything. It's simply information overloading; whether they're doing it knowingly, or simply repeating what they themselves have been told.

In the larger scheme of things punctuation seems like a pretty minor point; a quibble. Yet

. This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

and

. This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

...have considerably different meanings, and one would be justified in asking for clarification.

Punctuation is probably my biggest pet peeve, since there are few syntactical devices that can change meaning so easily and drastically. BTW, if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation by Lynne Truss (http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592400876)

My argument is not that we should have to redefine the language before we can embark on any meaningful discussion. In fact, as I said, I'm arguing essentially the opposite of that: that if we take care to agree on the general meaning of key terms up front, it saves a whole lot of semantic jabbering later on.

I understand that. My point is that people are averse to doing this for various reasons; obfuscation being the most common. And to address the point you made earlier, it may not necesssarily be intentional obfuscation with the purpose of defrauding; but reflexive obfuscation to evade (unconsciously) the fact that one lacks not only supporting evidence, but also a clear understanding of the terms one is repeating from other, ostensibly authoritative, sources.

Few people create woo. The vast majority simply parrot someone else's woo, without really understanding what it is, or how it fits into the general scheme of things. For example, I had a conversation with a friend who was advocating homeopathy. It was a difficult debate, until I realized that he did not understand the difference between actual homeopathy, and herbal medicine. This is not because he had made any effort to conflate the two; but because many homeopaths do, to obfuscate the fact that homeopathy is nothing but magical thinking. Since much herbal medicine actually does have a real effect, albeit an inconsistent one at best; homeopaths often equate the two practices, and include "inactive" herbal ingredients in their preparations to disguise the fact that true homeopathic medicine has no effect at all.

As I said, he was not deliberately obfuscating, but he was using someone else's obfuscatory language. Once I demonstrated the difference, he was intelligent and open-minded enough to accept that what he was really talking about was herbal medicine; and yes, homeopathy itself was a crock of s***. Not everyone is that conscientious, however; and I've had similar conversations with people who continued to insist that homeopathy and herbal medicine were the same thing, no matter how clearly I explained the difference.

Your argument for standardization is a noble idea, but virtually impossible, really. To continue with the present example, you propose "Guinness" as a standard term, but how do I know whether you're talking about the beer, the brewery, or the world-records' book? There are very few words that have one, and only one meaning.

By using context, or more specific terms, whichever is more appropriate.

The mystery of it is, some of them do. I'm thinking of some religious types I know who, engaged in apologetics are continually questioning their own claims. And as continually inventing new and more elaborate arguments for hanging on to them.
Jesuits are past masters of this. :)

[Dr H]

Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking, since I already answered those questions. I'll attempt to do so again, in more simplified language.

Technical language is not a "shortcut" in the way that jargon is. Technical language consists primarily of giving specific, standardized names to things that ordinarily lack names, or have a wide variety of names. A very simple example is the giving of names to mathematical functions. One can refer to a "commutative property", "distributive property", or "associative property" and another mathemetician will easily understand that these terms refer to concepts that would require pages of mathematics to adequately explicate.

OK, I can see where you're coming from. I still think you're making a rather fine and fussy distinction between "technical language" and "jargon". Technical language is a shortcut: the second definition for "jargon" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary is "the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a specific activity or group."

But I can see why you might want to make a distinction in some circumstances.

All the more reason why key term definitions should be settled up-front of the discussion.

[Dr H]

When the basis for your conclusions are faulty, intuition is going to be faulty. That's why so many people believe personal experiences are evidence of all sorts of things they are not evidence of.

But if you are really good at something, then intuition can be very accurate. I can tell you when someone is about to faint after I give them a shot. I know the cues. It's not magical intuition, it's years of experience intuition.

That essentially what I was saying.

You just presented it in a slightly different semantic format. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

That essentially what I was saying.

You just presented it in a slightly different semantic format. :)I know. I sometimes answer posts as I go and I didn't see your post until I already wrote mine.

These concepts need a lot of reinforcement for the persons who need a paradigm shift to get it, so it may even take a 3rd or 4th version to be understood. :D

[Dr H]

I've already addressed the differences between technical language and jargon in another post.

Yes, I responded to it there.

Not true. There are a myriad of references for both technical pursuits and paranormal ones. The former will use identical definitions for terms, based on standard references.

I've already given examples of technical terms for which this is not the case. "Current" in an oceanography text is not defined in the same way as "current" in an electrical engineering text. This is not a problem so long as one is aware in advance of the context in which the term is being used; one can then consult the appropriate reference to get the working definition for that particular discussion.

The latter may have some similarities with others in their particular "school"; but will typically vary widely throughout the field.

And I have already pointed out that there are similar references for paranormal terminology. Again, one needs to know the context in which a given term is being used so that one can consult a reference appropriate to the topic under discussion. Yes, things can be a lot fuzzier in these areas than they are in science, but there is far more agreement over basic definitions than you seem to be willing to credit.

Still, if the situation were as chaotic as you contend, that is an even stronger argument for my position that key definitions need to be hacked-out in advance of any more substantive discussion.

Just look at the differences between UFOlogists. There is no consensus in the field about whether extraterrestrials are purely physical beings like we are, just with better technology; advanced beings who have transcended physical forms; or supernatural entities choosing to manifest in physical or quasi-physical forms.

That analogy doesn't really fit the topic under discussion. What you are describing is not a disagreement over the definition of a term, but rather a disagreement over the appropriate description of a concept. UFOlogists don't necessarily differ so much over what 'extraterrestrial' means as they do over what "extraterrestrials" are.

One could as easily find similar situations in science. There is, for example, little disagreement over the definition of the term 'gravity,' but there is a considerable diversity of scientific opinion as to what the mechanism of gravity is.


This is most evident in esoteric religions and cults. Exactly the same language will be used for (proselytizing) outsiders, recruits, and initiates; but the terms given new, often contradictory, meanings to separate the inner circles from the outer.

This is really just another illustration of the obvious fact that most words can have multiple meanings. Sure, equivocation can be utilized for things like propaganda and indoctrination. This again supports my point that if communication is the goal, some definitional agreement is essential, precisely to head-off such equivocation at the gate.

In a perfect world, everyone would think like me. :D

Not so perfect as if they all thought like me, but I could probably work with it. ;)

More seriously, in a perfect world, people would use clear, unambiguous language; and not engage in logical fallacies. Humans, however, are far from perfect.

I have no argument with that.


There is some consistency with scientific terms; but this is more with the popular conception of scientific terminology, rather than the actual meaning of the terms.

What I am saying is that "actual meaning" is, at least to some extent, context-dependent. That's really the point: if someone uses a term in a way that is different from what most people in a given context are likely to expect it to mean, then we see problems like equivocation and/or failure to really communicate.

These problems can be minimized, however, by prior discussion -- and negotiation -- as to what said terms are to mean in the context at hand. Note that part of that negotiation may be to decide that it really isn't a good idea to use a particular term in such a non-standard way. In that case perhaps it can be agreed to use a different term, or even coin a new term, as necessary.

And even then, there is a huge variation in how many of these terms are used; the most obvious example being "quantum", which meaning morphs to fit the desires of the particular woo, and which does not correspond in any way to the standard, scientific meaning.

I will readily agree that some terms are more problematic than others.

And it's really disturbing how much inconsistency you can get away with, before people will not just realize, but admit to themselves, that they've been conned. Look up confirmation bias, the "Forer Effect", subjective validation, the base rate fallacy, loss aversion, and plain old cognitive dissonance.

I don't think we disagree on the bulk of this issue. Mainly what I am saying is that if you agree to try to settle terminology in advance of any substantive discussion that relies on that terminology, you have at least taken some reasonable steps to try to control the kind of inconsistency you describe.


As have I; but they're typically not able to explain what they mean, because they don't understand it themselves. They're simply parroting another source, without truly understanding the meanings of the terms they're using. Many times, they use them differently than those same terms were used by the source they believe they're quoting (particularly common when paranormalists quote scientific sources).

That is a different sort of problem. One which I also think a discussion of terms would serve to highlight, although in this case, probably not alleviate.


Again, they simply want you to accept what they say, without having to go through the effort of providing unassailable evidence.

Yes, that happens; that amounts to proselytization. Proselytization is not mutual communication; it's a one-way street. The only reason for arguing with someone trying to convert you to a viewpoint in that way is that you have nothing better to do at the moment and enjoy argument for it's own sake. Discussion of definitions in such a situation is a waste of time, because "discussion" itself has been rendered moot by the zealot.

I would disagree that it facilitates communication, since they're still not communicating anything. It's simply information overloading; whether they're doing it knowingly, or simply repeating what they themselves have been told.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point, then. While I don't maintain that it always facilitates communication -- certainly it won't if the particular astrologer in question is preaching at you -- there are other times in which it most certainly does improve information exchange. Not everyone, even in woo fields, is necessarily out to make converts. Sometimes they just want to discuss a topic of interest to them with a fresh set of ears.


Punctuation is probably my biggest pet peeve, since there are few syntactical devices that can change meaning so easily and drastically. BTW, if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation by Lynne Truss (http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592400876)

Thanks for the link; that looks like fun.


I understand that. My point is that people are averse to doing this for various reasons; obfuscation being the most common.

For sure.

But if someone is adverse to defining their key terms on some outre topic, do you really want to wait until you're deep in the bowels of a woo-woo argument to find out that the person you're arguing with has no idea what even their own key terms mean? Pressing them to come clean up front and having them balk may well save you the time you otherwise would have wasted getting to that point by beating around the bush, as it were.


Few people create woo. The vast majority simply parrot someone else's woo, without really understanding what it is, or how it fits into the general scheme of things.

That's probably true, but not necessarily germane. Few people create scientific knowledge; the rest accept what they hear from the people who do, often without really understanding it. Yet no reasonable person would use that fact as an excuse to avoid defining key scientific terms.


For example, I had a conversation with a friend who was advocating homeopathy. It was a difficult debate, until I realized that he did not understand the difference between actual homeopathy, and herbal medicine. This is not because he had made any effort to conflate the two; but because many homeopaths do, to obfuscate the fact that homeopathy is nothing but magical thinking. Since much herbal medicine actually does have a real effect, albeit an inconsistent one at best; homeopaths often equate the two practices, and include "inactive" herbal ingredients in their preparations to disguise the fact that true homeopathic medicine has no effect at all.

Been there. Quack medicine is my pet peeve, and I frequently encounter people who have conflated homeopathy and herbalism. After explaining the difference, I've even had a few people thank me, and set out to enlighten their friends. They may still be drinking peppermint tea to ward off the flu, but at least they no longer buy Zicam.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think we disagree on fundamental points. My main point really boils down to: if you have the semantic discussion first, you're are less likely to get sidetracked into it latter on in the argument; less likely to be accused of "playing with words"; and in some cases it may help you avoid a much longer and more fruitless argument altogether.

[luchog]

Not going to address the rest of the post, since we're either at an impasse, talking cross-purposes, or what little disagreement exists is at the hair-splitting level. :)

I've already given examples of technical terms for which this is not the case. "Current" in an oceanography text is not defined in the same way as "current" in an electrical engineering text. This is not a problem so long as one is aware in advance of the context in which the term is being used; one can then consult the appropriate reference to get the working definition for that particular discussion.

And I've stated multiple times, and it should really be self-evident, that context is crucial to any discussion. Anyone having a discussion of oceanography and assumes that the use of the word "current" is in relation to the flow of electrons rather than water is simply an idiot.

That's probably true, but not necessarily germane. Few people create scientific knowledge; the rest accept what they hear from the people who do, often without really understanding it. Yet no reasonable person would use that fact as an excuse to avoid defining key scientific terms.

Except that the point of scientific education is to ensure that the student does understand what is meant by the terms. In the context of Electricity, for example, engineers and technicians do not use "current" in their communications without first learning about electron/hole flow, Ohm's Law, Watt's Law, etc. They may not understand it at quite the same level as a particle physicist; but they have a sufficient understanding for the purposes of their particular context.

By contrast, a layman may use the term without properly understanding what it means; and thus may easily use it erroneously. Again, the most obvious example of this is the term "quantum". A huge number of non-scientists use the term, and the vast majority of them use it wrong. As a personal aside, I had a friend ask me to explain what it meant, when I was critiquing What the Bleep Do We Know? About 5 minutes into the attempt, I realized that it was simply not possible to explain it in a way that made sense to her and dispelled her misconception of the term, without also providing the level of science and maths education that typically requires a year or so of university-level courses.

Been there. Quack medicine is my pet peeve, and I frequently encounter people who have conflated homeopathy and herbalism. After explaining the difference, I've even had a few people thank me, and set out to enlighten their friends. They may still be drinking peppermint tea to ward off the flu, but at least they no longer buy Zicam.

Ugh. I was raised on quack medicine, my parents were seriously into all sorts of the stuff. Few things annoy me more.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think we disagree on fundamental points. My main point really boils down to: if you have the semantic discussion first, you're are less likely to get sidetracked into it latter on in the argument; less likely to be accused of "playing with words"; and in some cases it may help you avoid a much longer and more fruitless argument altogether.
I don't really disagree with that. My point was that the sort of person who typically engages in big semantic discussions within an argument is far more likely to be doing so in order to obfuscate, rather than clarify; which is why I rarely bother to involve myself in such debates anymore.

[Bodi]

luchog.

Another major difference between technical language and jargon is that the former is rigidly codified and standarized; and easily learned by anyone using standard references; whereas jargon is highly mutable and context-dependent.

easily learned? that's why there are so many out of work nuclear physicists, I guess...

More than the vast majority of those who use the term in a martial arts context.

Wow. You really know more than 'the vast majority'? And you're so humble, too. Except that I really don't see anything in all that follows this statement to demonstrate that you know anything that can't be found in ten minutes on the internet...... like this...

The term "chi" (aka "qi" or "ki") literally translates as "air", "breath", or "gas"; with the Chinese idiogram composed of "steam rising from cooking rice". It was originally a religious term referring to the "life force" that quickens all living things; and is congruent with the western "elan vital" or the "humours" of Galenic medicine, and the Hindu "prana". The meaning of the term varied widely throughout history, and could mean anything from a general, all-pervading "energy" of supernatural substance, to an actual physical substance which flowed through regular channels in the body and could be controlled and diverted. Claims of chi utility range from an inaccessible all-pervading force, to enhancement of ordinary physical acts, to providing psi powers such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind-control ("The Force" from George Lucas' Star Wars movies is based on some variants of chi).

OK. So you've demonstrated that you can read and collate....

In a martial arts context, the term is most often a hybrid;

A hybrid of what? I guess you could be referring to the fact that you never really see the term chi by itself in Chinese, but rather always coupled with another word. Except, if that were the case, why the statement about 'martial arts context'?

and refers to a channelable "life energy" which can originate entirely within one's body, or be drawn from the environment; and which can be used to enhance physical strength and speed...

That's not too bad. Yet you maintain that it isn't empirical in any way. You're saying, then, that increases in speed and strength, as claimed to be achieved through a particular training methodology, isn't subject to scientific method?

A few modern practitioners use it as an archaism to refer to conscious observation and control of the semi-autonomous processes of breathing, balance, and movement.

No. This is very, very misleading, and from the implied perspective that these modern practitioners are explaining it differently than non-modern practitioners, very very wrong. There is no (real) practitioner of any art of chi that does not understand the relationship between chi and breathing, balance, and movement. These are the foundations of chi practice. They are its core. They always have been, ancient or modern.

Its origins in Taoism, and use to refer to phenomena for which there is no verifiable empirical evidence.

Once again, you don't think something which can enhance physical function can be studied empirically?

I have a friend who is a nationally-ranked practitioner and trainer.

So what? Is he your teacher? Have you studied from him? I don't care what your friend knows. In the context of this conversation, only what you know, which once again, doesn't seem to be much more that a quick Wiki check and sophomoric research.

Aikido is a synthetic martial art

synthetic? as opposed to a natural one? lol. All martial arts are synthetic, i.e someone developed them.

with strong similarties to Tai Chi; which comes in two main forms: a soft, "spiritual" form analagous to Tai Chi's slow form; and a hard, physical form analagous to fast form Tai Chi. The soft form is highly ritualized, focuses strongly on meditation and woo concepts like "ki"; and is pursued predominantly as an avenue of "spiritual growth" and physical fitness, much like Yoga. The hard form is concerned primarily with control of balance, leverage, and inertia to maximize the ability to restrain or incapacitate an opponent while minimizing personal risk of injury;

All forms of Tai Chi are based on chi concepts. All of them also have hard and soft forms, and they all are concerned with qualities and attributes like balance, control, leverage and inertia, which are learned from chi concepts.

and is similar to Jujutsu (from which it is partially derived)

Tai Chi is not remotely, partially, or in any other way derived from jujutsu.

and Jeet Kune Do.

Tai Chi and Jeet Kune Do are very very different things. They are not similar. Not on the surface, and not underneath. Tai Chi is a classical style of chinese kung fu, whereas JKD is a philosophy and approach to studying MA.

:wackynotworthy:

Ok, let's test your research skill some more. What do you know about scientific research into chi kung?

[Bodi]

I just realized that I misread what you were saying (reading too fast). You weren't saying that tai chi was partially derived from jujutsu, you were saying aikido was, which is true. Apologies there.

[luchog]

easily learned? that's why there are so many out of work nuclear physicists, I guess...

I guess you can't tell the difference between learning terminology and learning concepts and skills. Do try to read more carefully in the future.

Wow. You really know more than 'the vast majority'? And you're so humble, too. Except that I really don't see anything in all that follows this statement to demonstrate that you know anything that can't be found in ten minutes on the internet...... like this...

And yet, the vast majority of martial arts students and practioners don't do a simple ten-minute search; since there is such a huge diversity in the explanation of what "chi" is, not only from students, but from instructors as well.

A hybrid of what? I guess you could be referring to the fact that you never really see the term chi by itself in Chinese, but rather always coupled with another word. Except, if that were the case, why the statement about 'martial arts context'?

I already addressed these, but since your reading comprehension is still lacking, I'll try again.

"Chi" is a nebulous term with a number of different meanings given, depending on the context and the individual defining it. As I said, and which you ignored, the term originated in Taoism, referring to a universal life force. Its use in a martial arts context diverges considerably from this origin, to a greater or lesser degree depending on who is using it. Not even those using the term have a definition which is universally accepted.

That's not too bad. Yet you maintain that it isn't empirical in any way. You're saying, then, that increases in speed and strength, as claimed to be achieved through a particular training methodology, isn't subject to scientific method?

Increases in strength and speed can be empirically measured. So far, no one has manage to empirically demonstrate how these are affected by the nebulous concept of "chi" (as opposed to, say, physical training); and all attempts to do so have failed utterly.

All attempts to demonstrate supernormal powers attributable to "chi" have similarly failed. Search the forum for "Yellow Bamboo" for one of the most egregious examples.

No. This is very, very misleading, and from the implied perspective that these modern practitioners are explaining it differently than non-modern practitioners, very very wrong. There is no (real) practitioner of any art of chi that does not understand the relationship between chi and breathing, balance, and movement. These are the foundations of chi practice. They are its core. They always have been, ancient or modern.

No, my comments were entirely accurate. Chi was originally conceived as a spiritual force, while the breathing, balance, and movement were though of as a method to channel chi energy for supernatural/magical purposes; just like yoga was originally a set of physical rituals of breathing, balance, and movement to channel "prana" for supernatural/magical purposes -- including clairvoyance, levitation, etc. Modern non-woo practitioners of both recognize that the supernaturalism is nonsense; and all the breathing, balance, and movement exercises do is allow one a greater awareness of and control over their own physical processes.

So what? Is he your teacher? Have you studied from him? I don't care what your friend knows. In the context of this conversation, only what you know, which once again, doesn't seem to be much more that a quick Wiki check and sophomoric research.

Ad Hominem, personal attack, poisoning the well. You're using logical fallacies to evade the fact that you can't address the point.

synthetic? as opposed to a natural one? lol. All martial arts are synthetic, i.e someone developed them.

And again, your ignorance and lack of language skill is showing.

The majority of marital arts have been developed organically over a long period of time as individual practices gradually become more focussed, and merge and coalesce into a codified, ritualized set of practices and rules. Nearly all traditional martial arts, such as Kung Fu, Tai Chi, Muay Thai, and Jujutsu, formed this way. Synthetic martial arts are those which are created, typically by a single individual or school, from components of existing martial arts forms, as well as "primitive" techniques, which are refined into a new system with the intent of emphasizing the strengths of the sources, while overcoming their flaws. Synthetic arts are typically less ritualized in their conception, although they can become moreso over time; and often less prone to woo. Examples of synthetic martial arts are Aikido, Jeet Kune Do, Hap Ki Do, and Tae Kwan Do. MMA is probably the best current example.

Ok, let's test your research skill some more. What do you know about scientific research into chi kung?
Assuming you're referring to the concept most often transliterated "qigong"; as has been noted in numerous previous threads on this board, there is not a single shred of verifiable scientific evidence for any of the metaphysical or supernatural claims for qigong; and the only benefits are those derived directly from the breathing, balance and movement exercises, which are no more effective than those used in sports training, ballet, or physical therapy. Exercise is beneficial, there's no need to saddle it with all the woo baggage contained in practices like qigong or yoga.