New Section Under General Academics?

[CWL]

Hal's thread regarding a non-English section of the forum got me thinking. Instead of a non-English section I would like to propose a new section under General Academics called "Linguistics and Semantics".

I would also like to suggest another section called "History".

Here are some of my thoughts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869898996#post1869898996) on the subject. Here are some more thoughts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869903795#post1869903795).

Hal has suggested that I start a poll on the topic. Well, this is just that. Vote away!

[Q-Source]

Hi CWL,

You are right. I have read many threads on the R&P Forum which seem to go discussing around semantics. This gives an idea that semantics is a very relevant issue (at least when it comes to discuss Philosophy) and maybe it should have a section. However, I do not think that most of the people who come to the JREF would engage in such discussions.

Why don't you start a thread purely about Linguistics and Semantics and see the response of the posters?.

Q-S

[CWL]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hi CWL,

You are right. I have read many threads on the R&P Forum which seem to go discussing around semantics. This gives an idea that semantics is a very relevant issue (at least when it comes to discuss Philosophy) and maybe it should have a section. However, I do not think that most of the people who come to the JREF would engage in such discussions.

Why don't you start a thread purely about Linguistics and Semantics and see the response of the posters?.

Q-S

Hiya, Q-S!

Well, as to Semantics I think the interest is clear as you yourself indicate. As to Linguistics, there does appear to be an interest therefor aswell, as the discussions going on here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=14434&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) would indicate.

What about History? History is fun, fun, fun! :)

[CWL]

Bump?

[CWL]

Pretty bump with sugar on it?

[whitefork]

"one lump or two?" (whack! whack!)

I'd like to see a linguistics forum too.

[CWL]

So, let's see where we're at.

With 14 votes cast (not reflected in the below figures since it is possible to vote for both new proposed forums) we have the following:

Linguistics and Semantics: 5 votes
History: 7 votes
No new sections: 6 votes

How positively exciting!

[CWL]

Come on you people! 148 views and only 15 votes?!?

Anyway, here's where we're at:

Linguistics and Semantics: 6 votes
History: 8 votes
No new sections: 6 votes

[PixyMisa]

You left out the Planet X option - what do you expect?

Having said which, I voted for both.

[renata]

I do not think there should be more sections, but if you must, a history section would be an interesting one.

[Upchurch]

Because shameless plugs should not go unrewarded. (or is it that they should go unrewarded?) :confused:

I think both are a very good idea, but I would especially look forward to a History board. There have been a few threads in both R&P and P&CE that would have been fun to argue more of the historical facts behind them. Imagine threads about holocaust revisionism and such.

(couldn't let the thread go on too long without mentioning Nazis, ya understand)

As history is not my strongest suit, I'd look forward to learning a lot.

[De_Bunk]

"History"... gets my vote....

( ...and what..!!!... you lot think i can't play in that section....get real....)

[Tez]

i like the 'history" idea. I think linguistics just wouldnt get enough interest to make a separate forum worthwhile.

For my money I'd also get rid of the Links and Radio SHow fora. People tend to post the links in whichever forum is suitable and if none is then in Banter. Similarly the radio show tends to get discussed in the more active forums...

[Skeptoid]

I've been in support of a History & Archaeology section since Hal's poll. I think it would be interesting and educational. I hope Hal reconsiders his decision to not open a new sub-forum.

:)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Skeptoid
I've been in support of a History & Archaeology section since Hal's poll. I think it would be interesting and educational. I hope Hal reconsiders his decision to not open a new sub-forum.

:)

I like the "& Archeology" bit. Interesting! :)

Originally posted by Tez
i like the 'history" idea. I think linguistics just wouldnt get enough interest to make a separate forum worthwhile.

Well, don't write it off to fast. Remember, this was originally in response to Hal's thoughts surrounding a non-English forum. A Linguistics & Semantics forum would be a great place for any non-English threads. In addition thereto, discussions on etymology, grammatics and general language issues could take place there. Adding "Semantics" would open up the forum for philosophical debate on definitions, connotations, the general function of language, the shortcomings of communications, etc. Pretty darn interesting stuff! :)

[Tez]

Originally posted by CWL

Well, don't write it off to fast. Remember, this was originally in response to Hal's thoughts surrounding a non-English forum. A Linguistics & Semantics forum would be a great place for any non-English threads. In addition thereto, discussions on etymology, grammatics and general language issues could take place there. Adding "Semantics" would open up the forum for philosophical debate on definitions, connotations, the general function of language, the shortcomings of communications, etc. Pretty darn interesting stuff! :)

Not saying it wouldnt be interesting - just that there wouldnt be enough response to warrant a separate forum. There are, relatively speaking, very few threads on those issues. Since "other language" threads are likely to most often be about things other than linguistics (once the initial thrill of realising that there exist other people who speak the same language dies down), I think its not such a great idea.

Personally I'd rather see a "General skeptic issues" forum, to be a "banterlike" place where anything of general interest relating to skepticism that doesnt fit in the more specific forums, is discussed. At the moment these threads get mixed up in Banter amongst the resident narcissists seeking attention, people playing chess, whining about the forum/other posters and so on. Much more use for another such general forum IMO....

[renata]

Originally posted by Tez



Personally I'd rather see a "General skeptic issues" forum, to be a "banterlike" place where anything of general interest relating to skepticism that doesnt fit in the more specific forums, is discussed. At the moment these threads get mixed up in Banter amongst the resident narcissists seeking attention, people playing chess, whining about the forum/other posters and so on. Much more use for another such general forum IMO....

Hey, wait a second! I take that personally!

Actually, I agree that Banter is a hodgepodge. Although many threads here ( like the chess thread) could go into the totally unrelated forum, that forum appears to be less read, and populated by more shall we say, graphic posts. I think there will always be a forum for miscellaneous stuff. In the meanwhile, there are times when the same topic is posted in three different forums, and the response is diluted.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tez
Personally I'd rather see a "General skeptic issues" forum, to be a "banterlike" place where anything of general interest relating to skepticism that doesnt fit in the more specific forums, is discussed. At the moment these threads get mixed up in Banter amongst the resident narcissists seeking attention, people playing chess, whining about the forum/other posters and so on. Much more use for another such general forum IMO....

That's an interesting thought. I would gladly participate in such a forum myself. I suppose that the "Million Dollar Challenge" could to a certain extent cater to those needs, but it's not entirely relevant (and certainly does not function in that way at the present). A "General Skepticism" forum (assumedly under "JREF Topics"?) is not a bad idea at all...

[CWL]

Quick update (24 votes cast):

Linguistics & Semantics: 7
History (& Archeology, as suggested): 14
No new sections: 9

[DialecticMaterialist]

History can go under science or politics. Linguistics, philosophy or science.

I mean we may as well add, math,ethics,biblical scholarship, etc. If we go that route.

[CWL]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
History can go under science or politics.

No it can't. When one refers to "Science" one is normally talking about "Natural Science" as oppsosed to "the Humanities". This is very much the case on this board. History is not a part of Natural Science.

Politics? How is for instance debating the occurence of a certain event or phenomenon in history, politics? For instance, a discussion on the reasons for the spread of the bubonic plague in medieval Europe could hardly be categorized as politics.

Linguistics, philosophy or science.

Although I agree that Semantics is a subset of Philosophy, Linguistics certainly is not. Nor is the study and practice of languages a part of Natural Science.

I mean we may as well add, math,ethics,biblical scholarship, etc. If we go that route.

Aw, come on. By your reasoning it would make more sense to bundle L&A, P&CE and R&P under a general forum called "Humanities". Nice and neat. Only two rather general subsections to General Academics. Perhaps only one? "Natural Science and the Humanities"?

Seriously, "Ethics" and "Biblical Scholarship" are clear subsets of Religion & Philosophy, so no points on those. I will give you "Math" - but I don't think your argument is very strong. We could indeed go that route - I am certain that there are posters who very would be interested in such a forum.

[renata]

Maybe Arts & Literature forum can be expanded to include History?

[Luciana]

Great idea, Renata!

(I'm rooting for you at Chess, uh? BEHAVE!)

Instead of opening new forums, why not expand the nearly-empty existing ones?

I like Banter the way it is, btw.

[renata]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Great idea, Renata!

(I'm rooting for you at Chess, uh? BEHAVE!)

Instead of opening new forums, why not expand the nearly-empty existing ones?

I like Banter the way it is, btw.

so post in my chess thread already! :)

[DialecticMaterialist]

No it can't. When one refers to "Science" one is normally talking about "Natural Science" as oppsosed to "the Humanities". This is very much the case on this board. History is not a part of Natural Science.

History can be considered and treated as a science. In fact many so-called "Sciences" are historical in nature, paleontology, geology, cosmology.

Politics? How is for instance debating the occurence of a certain event or phenomenon in history, politics? For instance, a discussion on the reasons for the spread of the bubonic plague in medieval Europe could hardly be categorized as politics.

Debating about whether the American revolution was a good or bad thing.




Although I agree that Semantics is a subset of Philosophy, Linguistics certainly is not. Nor is the study and practice of languages a part of Natural Science.

I would say it is a science.

Also I don't think it's the "Natural Science" forum but the Science forum.




Aw, come on. By your reasoning it would make more sense to bundle L&A, P&CE and R&P under a general forum called "Humanities".


Perhaps, there is a bit of approximation involved. However I see the devision as relevant as those are three big seperate things people discuss.

"Natural Science and the Humanities"?

Practical considerations, people will often times talk about philosophy, science, politics and literature as different subjects. You can put them together but things may get clustered. However with Linguistics and History, they fit nicely into other categories and are not really discussed to recieve a category on their own.


We could lump all discussions together under the heading "Board Forum" as well, but that'd be very pointless. The fact is the above 4 each have unique methods with them, Art,Science, Philosophy and Political discussions each go by different standards. History and Linguistics does not really bring a unique set of methods with it but can be easily included under the general four. (Science)

Seriously, "Ethics" and "Biblical Scholarship" are clear subsets of Religion & Philosophy, so no points on those.


Biblical scholarship is a religion? I more thought of it as literature or a study of history. You know that Biblical scholarship sia secular endeavor right?

I will give you "Math" - but I don't think your argument is very strong. We could indeed go that route - I am certain that there are posters who very would be interested in such a forum.

I think the Linguistics and Semantics forum would be fruitless. I mean what would we debate, what the "true" definition of a word is? It's not a large enough topic to merit its own forum.

History may be popular but it fits neatly into the science section, so likewise I don't think it needs its own forum.

I think a lot of this, especially the Linguistics aspect is more your own personal interest, not really widely shared and I don't see that as sufficient reason to make an entire forum on it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

And yes we *can* make new forums for those two subjects.

But as Chris Rock said, we can do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should.

I *can* drive a car with my feet, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[CWL]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
History can be considered and treated as a science. In fact many so-called "Sciences" are historical in nature, paleontology, geology, cosmology.

Yes, those "Sciences" are historical in nature. The study of History as such is notwithstanding undoubtedly a subset of the Humanities.

Debating about whether the American revolution was a good or bad thing.

If it has implications on today's policies, that would be a political discussion, yes. Otherwise it is pure History, not a discussion on politics.

I would say it is a science.

Yes, but not a "natural science".

Also I don't think it's the "Natural Science" forum but the Science forum.

It doesn't really matter what you think. It is a fact that it currently is treated as the "Natural Science" forum.

Perhaps, there is a bit of approximation involved. However I see the devision as relevant as those are three big seperate things people discuss.

Well History is in fact also a "big separate thing" that people discuss - but it doesn't really fit into to any of those categories.

Practical considerations, people will often times talk about philosophy, science, politics and literature as different subjects. You can put them together but things may get clustered. However with Linguistics and History, they fit nicely into other categories and are not really discussed to recieve a category on their own.

No they do not "fit nicely into other categories". Both History and Linguistics are clear separate subsets of the Humanites (as is evidenced by the fact that they are treated as such at most faculties).

We could lump all discussions together under the heading "Board Forum" as well, but that'd be very pointless. The fact is the above 4 each have unique methods with them, Art,Science, Philosophy and Political discussions each go by different standards. History and Linguistics does not really bring a unique set of methods with it but can be easily included under the general four. (Science)

Why are you referring to the "general four" like they were academical standards? They are merely a construct of this forum.

Biblical scholarship is a religion? I more thought of it as literature or a study of history. You know that Biblical scholarship sia secular endeavor right?

No, Biblical scholarship is not a religion (?!?) - it is the study of religion. Sorry I didn't spell that out for you. :rolleyes:

I think the Linguistics and Semantics forum would be fruitless. I mean what would we debate, what the "true" definition of a word is? It's not a large enough topic to merit its own forum.

Debates like that go on every day in R&P.

History may be popular but it fits neatly into the science section, so likewise I don't think it needs its own forum.

Not as long as the Science section is reserved for Natural Science, which in fact seems to be judging from the debates that now take place in that forum.

I think a lot of this, especially the Linguistics aspect is more your own personal interest, not really widely shared and I don't see that as sufficient reason to make an entire forum on it.

Not widely shared? 25 % of the votes cast at this point in time (32) indicate otherwise.

The fact that you personally wouldn't participate in such a forum isn't reason alone.

And yes we *can* make new forums for those two subjects.

But as Chris Rock said, we can do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should.

I *can* drive a car with my feet, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Golly. I had no idea that Mr. Rock was such an authority on scholarly matters. Ok. That makes all the difference.

Seriously, we *can* also try to have discussions on History and/or Linguistics in the current categories. The subjects still do not fit in there as nicely as you contend.

[CWL]

Originally posted by renata
Maybe Arts & Literature forum can be expanded to include History?

If there is a strong opposition against new forums as such, I think this is a good idea.

[CWL]

Quick update (34 votes cast):

Linguistics and Semantics: 8
History: 16
No new sections: 16

[CWL]

Ok, so we now have 9 votes in total for Linguistics and Semantics (35 votes cast).

Just imagine the discussions (from Episode 12 (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode12.htm) of Monty Python's Flying Circus):

Foam at the mouth and fall over backwards. Is he foaming at the mouth to fall over backwards or falling over backwards to foam at the mouth. Tonight 'Spectrum' examines the whole question of frothing and falling, coughing and calling, screaming and bawling, walling and stalling, galling and mauling, palling and hauling, trawling and squalling and zalling. Zalling? Is there a word zalling? If there is what does it mean...if there isn't what does it mean? Perhaps both. Maybe neither. What do I mean by the word mean? What do I mean by the word word, what do I mean by what do I mean, what do I mean by do, and what do I do by mean? What do I do by do by do and what do I do by wasting your time like this? Goodnight.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by CWL
Quick update (34 votes cast):

Linguistics and Semantics: 8
History: 16
No new sections: 16

You should have started this thread in the R&P forum. Here nobody cares about Semantics and Linguistics.

History is o.k. too. There are more possibilities for that section.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You should have started this thread in the R&P forum. Here nobody cares about Semantics and Linguistics.

History is o.k. too. There are more possibilities for that section.

You know what, I think you may be right. I shall ask the moderators to move this thread to R&P.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes, those "Sciences" are historical in nature. The study of History as such is notwithstanding undoubtedly a subset of the Humanities.

t's better treated as a science. Not an art.


If it has implications on today's policies, that would be a political discussion, yes. Otherwise it is pure History, not a discussion on politics.

History always(or usually) has implications on todays policies.


Yes, but not a "natural science".

So what? Psychology, cognitive science, and anthropology are not natural sciences either, does that mean they each get a section?


It doesn't really matter what you think.

What an open minded approach. ;)

It is a fact that it currently is treated as the "Natural Science" forum.

Is it? Not really.

Matters of IQ and male/female differences are not exactly "natural sciences"(a very vague and arbitrary distinction which I don't adhere to anyways)

but I found threads on those subjects in about 1 second.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19418

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19400

As well as MPD.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18540

Either your definition of natural science is so vague that it can include hitorical/psychological sciences, like history and athropology. Or any studies concerning aspects of human nature and historical events cannot be called natural science(there goes much biology,psychology etc.)

quote: Perhaps, there is a bit of approximation involved. However I see the devision as relevant as those are three big seperate things people discuss.

Well History is in fact also a "big separate thing" that people discuss - but it doesn't really fit into to any of those categories.

I don't really see many posts on it. Of course that may be "because there's no place to post about it." But that's conjecture, I could say that about anything.



No they do not "fit nicely into other categories". Both History and Linguistics are clear separate subsets of the Humanites (as is evidenced by the fact that they are treated as such at most faculties).

Well the faculties destinction in this matter is based more on tradition then a real reason to differentiate I'd say.

And IF faculties treat things differently, that doesn't follow that there 1) Is a solid distinction. 2) That the subjects cannot fit under other forums.

Faculties often times treat religion and philosophy differently. That doesn't mean they can't go together well though.


Why are you referring to the "general four" like they were academical standards? They are merely a construct of this forum.

All categories on any forums are mere constructs. Even your proposed ones. Thus that's not really a good refutation.

Secondly, I'm not reffering to the "General Four" because they are academic distinctions set by the state or universities but because they've already been established on the board.


No, Biblical scholarship is not a religion (?!?) - it is the study of religion. Sorry I didn't spell that out for you.

Well I guess then, I must speel out that's its not a study of religion but a study of the Bible.



Debates like that go on every day in R&P.

Where? Just looked. None there.



Not as long as the Science section is reserved for Natural Science, which in fact seems to be judging from the debates that now take place in that forum.

No they aren't. There's psychology in there too.



Not widely shared? 25 % of the votes cast at this point in time (32) indicate otherwise.

Actually it's more like 9.4 percent now.

The fact that you personally wouldn't participate in such a forum isn't reason alone.

Well then the fact that you'd personally want such a forum is not sufficient reason to make it.


Golly. I had no idea that Mr. Rock was such an authority on scholarly matters. Ok. That makes all the difference.

LOL. I was just crediting the guy with a clever saying, not making him an authority.

Seriously, we *can* also try to have discussions on History and/or Linguistics in the current categories. The subjects still do not fit in there as nicely as you contend.

I think they do. I think the only reason they would fail to fit is if a person didn't follow up what he/she said about history and linguistics with evidence, empirical/tested evidence like they do with science. In which case discussions about history and language will get nowhere. Because the subjects are not settled by rational discourse(philosophy) or research(science) but become mere conjecture. I'd rather such subjects be treated like serious matters rather then conjecture. These subjects are also different from politics and art, in that the two mentioned subjects consists of value judgements. History and linguistics unlike art and politics are not matters of value judgement though but matters of discovery, empirical discovery, which is a scientific endeavor(or one best left to scientific method anyways.)

[CWL]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
t's better treated as a science. Not an art.
Science, yes. Natural science, no.

History always(or usually) has implications on todays policies.
Granted to a certain extent, but that does not mean that the discipline should be sorted under politics as you suggested.

So what? Psychology, cognitive science, and anthropology are not natural sciences either, does that mean they each get a section?
Perhaps they should?
What an open minded approach. ;)
:D Touché. That was a rather grumpy remark on my behalf. My apologies.

Is it? Not really.

Matters of IQ and male/female differences are not exactly "natural sciences"(a very vague and arbitrary distinction which I don't adhere to anyways)

but I found threads on those subjects in about 1 second.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19418

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19400

As well as MPD.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18540

Either your definition of natural science is so vague that it can include hitorical/psychological sciences, like history and athropology. Or any studies concerning aspects of human nature and historical events cannot be called natural science(there goes much biology,psychology etc.)

quote: Perhaps, there is a bit of approximation involved. However I see the devision as relevant as those are three big seperate things people discuss.

I don't really see many posts on it. Of course that may be "because there's no place to post about it." But that's conjecture, I could say that about anything.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Although I agree that the proposition "if you build it they will come" is pure conjecture, you must admit that the poll indicates that there is a certain interest for History on this board.

Well the faculties destinction in this matter is based more on tradition then a real reason to differentiate I'd say.

And IF faculties treat things differently, that doesn't follow that there 1) Is a solid distinction. 2) That the subjects cannot fit under other forums.

Faculties often times treat religion and philosophy differently. That doesn't mean they can't go together well though.

To a certain extent I can agree that faculties are based more on tradition than a real reason to diffrentiate. However, I would argue that these traditions just so happen to coincide with a rather logical diffrentiation, the oustet of which is the division of Natural Sciences and the Humanities. I do agree that it is difficult to draw the line, however as to certain disciples - Archeology being a prime example.

All categories on any forums are mere constructs. Even your proposed ones. Thus that's not really a good refutation.

Secondly, I'm not reffering to the "General Four" because they are academic distinctions set by the state or universities but because they've already been established on the board.
I see your point. I trust you see my point which was merely that the "general four" should not be regarded as written in stone.

Well I guess then, I must speel out that's its not a study of religion but a study of the Bible.
...which was a (rather important) religious text last time I checked.

Where? Just looked. None there.

Two examples of threads on the subject of defining terms (took me 1 sec aswell):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=19335

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=19404

You will find similar discussions on the meaning of certain words as sidetracks in many of the threads in R&P.


No they aren't. There's psychology in there too.
What's your point? My point is that the forum in question is not the place for discussions on History and/or Linguistics.
Actually it's more like 9.4 percent now.

Look again. With 45 votes cast it is 22,22 %. You need to add option no. 1 and option no. 2, remember?

Well then the fact that you'd personally want such a forum is not sufficient reason to make it.
True. Then again, I never said it was.

LOL. I was just crediting the guy with a clever saying, not making him an authority.
:D I know. Just being cheeky.

I think they do. I think the only reason they would fail to fit is if a person didn't follow up what he/she said about history and linguistics with evidence, empirical/tested evidence like they do with science. In which case discussions about history and language will get nowhere. Because the subjects are not settled by rational discourse(philosophy) or research(science) but become mere conjecture. I'd rather such subjects be treated like serious matters rather then conjecture. These subjects are also different from politics and art, in that the two mentioned subjects consists of value judgements. History and linguistics unlike art and politics are not matters of value judgement though but matters of discovery, empirical discovery, which is a scientific endeavor(or one best left to scientific method anyways.) [/B]

Hmmm. Good points I must honestly confess.

Perhaps you could expand on that in one of the new forums? :p

[CWL]

Just checking to see whether the subject matter of this thread receives more attention in this forum... didn't do to well in Banter. :(

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL
Just checking to see whether the subject matter of this thread receives more attention in this forum... didn't do to well in Banter. :(



We fear change. Change is eeeeeevil.



edited to add: Never let me post when I'm on cold medication again. Someone just stop me.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
edited to add: Never let me post when I'm on cold medication again. Someone just stop me.

Ain't nothin' gonna stop da funk. :cool:

[CWL]

Originally posted by CWL


Ain't nothin' gonna stop da funk. :cool:

... or da bump. :D

[CWL]

See how good it looks?

[CWL]

Give me a "B"!

Give me a "U"!

Give me a "M"!

Give me a "P"!

Yay!

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by CWL


... A Linguistics & Semantics forum would be a great place for any non-English threads. In addition thereto, discussions on etymology, grammatics and general language issues could take place there. Adding "Semantics" would open up the forum for philosophical debate on definitions, connotations, the general function of language, the shortcomings of communications, etc. Pretty darn interesting stuff! :)

As the founder of Semantheism (Semantic Theism), all I can say is G.O.D. bless CWL for his excellent idea. (Which will probably be enough to kill any possibility of it happening :-)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel


As the founder of Semantheism (Semantic Theism), all I can say is G.O.D. bless CWL for his excellent idea. (Which will probably be enough to kill any possibility of it happening :-)

Yale!

On the contrary. Your participation in any semantics thread will be sure to get the discussions going.

Long time no seen, BTW. How did your talk go?

P.S. Thanks for the blessing. Being an atheist I will simply take it as a personal compliment (which should be good enough for anyone). :)

[whitefork]

Funky C, just drop the N from Semantheism and you're there.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
Funky C, just drop the N from Semantheism and you're there.

:D

Aptly (and funky) put as always.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by CWL


Yale!

On the contrary. Your participation in any semantics thread will be sure to get the discussions going.

Long time no seen, BTW. How did your talk go?

P.S. Thanks for the blessing. Being an atheist I will simply take it as a personal compliment (which should be good enough for anyone). :)

Hi CWL, and thanks for the kind words. As for my talk it kind of went well as everyone stayed not only for the full two hours, but also the half hour Q & A. OTOH, while intrigued and even during the Q & A having collectively solved the going away from/coming towards puzzle, they could not go further. I think the reason why is simply that to not see God as anthropomorphic instead of as a operating principle is like requiring a Victoria's Secret model to put a bag over her head and walk around in a coat five sizes too big. Ain't gonna' ever happen :-) thank G.O.D. !!!

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel
Hi CWL, and thanks for the kind words. As for my talk it kind of went well as everyone stayed not only for the full two hours, but also the half hour Q & A. OTOH, while intrigued and even during the Q & A having collectively solved the going away from/coming towards puzzle, they could not go further.

Glad to hear they stayed - especially during the Q & A (always a good sign). Did you get any jokes in there as Fool suggested?

I think the reason why is simply that to not see God as anthropomorphic instead of as a operating principle is like requiring a Victoria's Secret model to put a bag over her head and walk around in a coat five sizes too big. Ain't gonna' ever happen :-) thank G.O.D. !!!
Well, although we may not agree on the existence of God (or upon a definition thereof) we certainly agree on the necessity of viable ethics (and of Victoria's Secret models not being too covered ;)).

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by CWL


Glad to hear they stayed - especially during the Q & A (always a good sign). Did you get any jokes in there as Fool suggested?



The jokes flowed like beer at a frat party.


Well, although we may not agree on the existence of God (or upon a definition thereof) we certainly agree on the necessity of viable ethics (and of Victoria's Secret models not being too covered ;)).

Speaking of ethics, my wife and I have been attending an Ethical Culture group in NJ the past few Sundays. Which raised a question for me that you may be able to answer: even though Felix Adler, the secular humanist founder of Ethical Culture, wrote about "higher forces, great and good", these folks do not believe in a God, even a non-anthropomorphic one. Can you explain what appears at least to me to be an interesting contradiction?


Regards, Yale

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel
The jokes flowed like beer at a frat party.

Two things that indeed should always flow are jokes and beer. :D

Speaking of ethics, my wife and I have been attending an Ethical Culture group in NJ the past few Sundays. Which raised a question for me that you may be able to answer: even though Felix Adler, the secular humanist founder of Ethical Culture, wrote about "higher forces, great and good", these folks do not believe in a God, even a non-anthropomorphic one. Can you explain what appears at least to me to be an interesting contradiction?


Regards, Yale

Very interesting indeed. Of course, I cannot answer for Mr. Adler since I do not know the context in which he used the expression. Speaking for myself - and I do consider myself a secular humanist incidentally - it does happen that I speak of "great and good" as if they were fixed concepts (although perhaps not so much about "higher forces"). I personally use such expressions as a figure of speach in reference of the values to which I subscribe. You may find examples of those in the Amsterdam Declaration of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm). Although I do not believe in a God, I do believe in values and ideas - most of which are hopefully ultimately based on rational grounds and the common good of humankind (at least this is what I strive for). :)

Edited because I find typos extremely annoying

[CWL]

With 57 individuals having voted:

- 16 of them would like to see a Linguistics and Semantics Forum;
- 27 of them would like to see a History Forum; and
- 24 of them would like to see no more forums ("change is eeeeevil").

We currently have 739 views.

[R&P mode]

Does this mean anything to anyone? What does it all mean? Why are we here? Is there a purpose? Do we have free willy? Can we disobey TLOP? Can anyone refute the notion that we do not need any new forums?

[/R&P mode]

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by CWL


... Although I do not believe in a God, I do believe in values and ideas - most of which are hopefully ultimately based on rational grounds and the common good of humankind (at least this is what I strive for). :)

Edited because I find typos extremely annoying

Based on what you just said I'm quite curious about what you think of these values and ideas:
http://theometry.org/ehsfh.htm

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel


Based on what you just said I'm quite curious about what you think of these values and ideas:
http://theometry.org/ehsfh.htm

:D Yale, my friend.

As usual I must initially disappoint you by announcing that I need a bit more information in order to understand what you are getting at. I believe I may have an idea of the the thoughts you are trying to get across, but I am not quite sure.

It seems to me that you have a tendency of overlooking the background and introduction to the points you are trying to make. Cutting to the chase is only good if you are 100 % sure the person you are talking to has a 100 % understanding of your points of departure. That is virtually never the case. As someone interested in semantics, you know the difficulties of communication...

In other words, I would be happy to offer my perspective on your thoughts as expressed in the above links - however, first I need to understand them. Think "wisdom for dummies"! :D

Kind regards,
/CWL

[Trinity]

I voted for linguistics. So I might improve my English. Or maybe that is not what it is about?

Trinity

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Trinity
I voted for linguistics. So I might improve my English. Or maybe that is not what it is about?

Trinity

Hey Trinity darling. Long time since I last saw you. ;)

I agree with you, a linguistics section will help to improve the English of those who are not english-speaking natives.

[BeholdTheTruth]

CWL,

I believe that our values and ideas direct our behaviors in certain directions. And I also believe that our values and ideas as well bound our behaviors. And furthermore I believe the ideas and values of other people, to the extent that we allow ourselves to be influenced by them and their ideas and values, effect our behaviors.

What I have submitted to you is the idea that there is a specific and often very effective methodology used by "bad guys" (I call them "black hats") to get the most for the least from good guys (I call them "white hats"), especially often the best and brightest of the white hats.

As by now I am assuming that you and I share many of the same values, I am wondering what you think of the ideas introduced in my "Eight Heavenly Sentences From Hell"?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel
As by now I am assuming that you and I share many of the same values, I am wondering what you think of the ideas introduced in my "Eight Heavenly Sentences From Hell"?

Yale,

It does indeed seem that we share many values. :)

Thanks for your clarification. Bearing that in mind, I promise to read your Hellish Sentences again and give it some thought.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Trinity
I voted for linguistics. So I might improve my English. Or maybe that is not what it is about?

Trinity

Trinity,

Good for you!

Improving one's English (and/or other languages), etymology, usage, style, idioms, spelling, affinity between languages, defining words and concepts, problems with communication, semiotics, semantics - you name it.

[CWL]

Hmmm... this makes me think of a certain Tower of Power album, originally released in 1972.

[CWL]

I am of course referring to "Bump City".

[CWL]

63 individuals have voted. The result thus far:

A new History forum: 28 votes
A new Linguistics forum: 17 votes
No new forums: 28 votes

A small reminder of what we are talking about:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?postid=1869918041

[BeholdTheTruth]

CWL,

I am not surprised that so few people here in this Religion and Philosophy section have an interest in starting a Linguistics and Semantics forum. But as several of us do, I for one suggest that we use this thread of yours as one until you find another venue for it. I'd be very interested to know where you would like to take it? Regards, Yale L

[CWL]

Originally posted by Yalel
CWL,

I am not surprised that so few people here in this Religion and Philosophy section have an interest in starting a Linguistics and Semantics forum. But as several of us do, I for one suggest that we use this thread of yours as one until you find another venue for it. I'd be very interested to know where you would like to take it? Regards, Yale L

Well, much thanks to that illustrious forum member and funky gentleman, Mr. Whitefork, some interesting discussions on etymology have for instance been going on here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=14434&perpage=40&pagenumber=3). I can think of a multitute of such topics.

For example, regarding your "hellish sentences" - I have read them again. Could you maybe provide a practical example (e.g. an actual market campaign or similar)?