It is a very valid point. You are handing your power of language over to an authority who decides what is the "right" or "wrong" usage of that word. That may not be the case. Right or wrong is an opinion. If a large group of people use a particular word to communicate something and they all agree on what that word means then they are using the "right" word as long as it accomplishes communication and understanding.

Language and word usage is created by the people. The people decide what words mean. Meanings of words are changing all the time. They are changed by the people who use them.

Everybody is not going to go by the "rules" except maybe in school. People who write dictionaries have to try to define the meanings of words according to how the people use them. It is not the other way around.

I met two men from Italy who worked for the company I was working for and they did not speak very much English. They had taken two years of "English" in school but they were still quite unable to communicate with Americans. They did not understand slang, analogies, and other types of communications.

One day I said something that was totally slang and totally bad grammer and they were all over me asking the meanings of what I was saying.

I told them I should not teach them such things because it was totally "wrong" and incorrect English and bad grammer or slang. They did not care. All they wanted to do was to be able to communicate. The language being used in America was not taught in their English classes. Of course it wasn't, because it was "incorrect."

And yet they desperately wanted to learn it so they could communicate.

Language is all about communication, correct or not.

Perfect example of what we are talking about here.

Lets deconstruct the meanings here and avoid semantics.

#1

#2

#3


So we see here that the subject of this dialog was "burden of proof"
In quote #1 We have a claim, that philosophy cannot prove things. No reason specified just an assertion. No evidence, no facts, nothing really at all to support this, not even a definition for "prove" to hold anything up against.

In quote #2 we have a question, this is indicated by the ??? question marks, in case you didn't know what those meant abra. From my interpretation of the question marks I assume creative wanted an elaboration on the assertion made, quite rightly given the lack of any supportive information.

In quote # 3 something very odd happens, the subject matter has changed, from "burden of proof" to "philosophy having ever been proved"

One could aptly label this move as simply off topic, I however label it as misdirection, or moving goal posts. Its pretty wily and used every day in politics, if it was unintentional it illustrates a lack of focus.

Well, everyone has their own subjective perceptions I guess.

If no philosophy has ever been proven then I guess no philosopher has ever risen to the unrealistic goal of satisfying any "burden of proof".

I don't see this as having been a change of subject. This just illustrates the wisdom that Jeanniebean has been sharing with us.

Proof amounts to nothing more than convincing someone of something. So all proof reduced to nothing more than subjective acceptance.

Moreover, we been through the 'burden of proof' thing before. We had a far degree of consensus that any 'burden of proof' is on the person who is attempting to prove something, or on the person who is demanding proof. It's shifts depending on who desires proof.

For example, about 2500 years ago a Greek Philosopher named Zeno had proven using pure logic that this universe necessarily must be quantized and not a continuum.

Of course, I can say that he had 'proven' his philosophy because I was personally convinced by his logical arguments. However that vast majority of philosophers were not convinced by Zeno. Even to this very day there are very few people who accept the validity of Zeno's "proof".

Even in the face of the empirical science of Quantum Mechanics and the myriad of observational physical experiments that have emprirically verified that Zeno was indeed correct and that we do indeed live in a quantum universe, many people still do not see that Zeno's arguments were indeed air-tight.

Ironically this "proves" Jeanniebean's point that "proof" is nothing more than subjective agreement.

Of course, there will always be those who subjectively disagree with this statetment and so from their veiwpoint nothing has been "proven". Ironically by taking this very stance they are verifying the validity of Jeanniebean's views even whilst they deny that she has proven them.

Your subjective opinion may vary.

The French take THEIR language quite seriously. Richelieu began the Acadamie Francaise in 1634 and it continues today. This government agency actually sets policy regarding new words and word usage and here’s a kicker for you – they actually police it. Lawsuits have been fought and won against big businesses that ‘offend’ the language laws, most specifically in regards to international transactions, like airlines and marketing firms and such.

While there are several reasons for this strict language, one of its earliest was to promote better communication among those sharing land under French control. Not only was French to be spoken by all people in the state but it was to be dialect free. Even today French have few dialects – however, it now has other issues.

I have always admired the purity of the French language specifically because there is little doubt as to what is being communicated. Unfortunately the Acadamie Francaise is facing the greatest challenges in our modern technological and scientific era than it has since the 15th century.

Terms like e-mail have been banned and many others, like hotdog have had to be created in French using original French – no new words only old ones strung together in correct format.

For a long time French became the model for international language, picking up when Latin, a dead language, could no longer keep pace with modernity. The French people and all the millions who use French as a second language may be facing the same challenge that Latin once expressed.

Most of us are guilty of abusing our language and to keep pace with trends, technology, and science, and even the arts, we have ‘devolved’ much of our language to the point at which communication is no longer tool we need it to be.

As I make my way though the layers of ‘higher education’ I have discovered that each profession maintains their own language, written format, and referencing with great vigor. I understand why this is necessary but I find the most unfortunate abuse of language is that it serves, more than ever before, as a segregating factor. Language, when misused, creates divisiveness among people and no more so than between people of class. This is one reason why so many below the upper middle class are at odds with the world. We simple cannot communicate.

Words and how we use them – ESPECIALLY- in writing are extremely important. If a word or a phrase does not adhere to the more common/formal definition, an explanation should be included.

Furthermore, any disagreements that might stem from a misused word or phrase should not be a major crisis, but both parties should learn form the experience and both should try to do better.

I would just put quotes around the word when using it in the dialogue with that person to show that they are not using it in the form I agree with.


I guess we all have the right to call a rock an umbrella if we so choose. It will make it hard for other to understand us at that level but the right is there.

The fields dealing with the science of psychology have all been based on philosophy. It would be easy to take any psychological theory and do some thought experiments to come up with other philosophical questions - which might then be subjected to scientific evaluation.

This is just one case where a philosophical point of view not only had a proven point of reference but may also provide the basis of further scientific evaluations.

Don't forget that philosophy WAS science for a long time. Those who taught philosophy at university WERE teaching science....

I don't question that at all. On the contrary I agree with it wholeheartedly.

That's the whole point. Philosophy considers 'plausiblity arguments'. If they ever get to the point where they can actually prove something, then it's no longer philosophy, it instantly becomes 'science'.

In fact, look at poor Zeno. He proved his case 2500 years ago using nothing more than pure logic.

No one bothered to accept his proof. In fact, philosophers across the ages have refuted his proof (They didn't disprove it, but simply rejected it on subjective opinionated grounds)

All of mathematics rejected Zeno's philosophical 'proof'. Even today mathematicians falsely hold out that they can solve Zeno's paradoxes using calculus (which is truly a joke!)

Then we have the science of Quantum Mechanics come along and prove both mathematically and empirically that Zeno was right all along, the universe trule is based on a quanta and not on a continuum.

Even today, the mathematicians still hold out that mathematics should be based on a continuum. Even thought Zeno had proven that to be a false notion 2500 years ago, and Modern Science has empirically verified it.

So maybe there should be a 'burden of accepting proof' considered somewhere in all of this. Zeno proved his point. But no one accepted his proof.

Where's the burden of accepting what's been proven?

That's an interesting twist of vantage points isn't it?

If this is supportive of your definition for "proof" then this further destroys your distinction between philosophy and science.

Delightfully erratic.

Would you like to clarify with some examples ?.

Good point Abra.



You say "to-may-to", I say "to-mah-to". So what's more important - how you pronounce it, or whether you get the idea a cross?


Arguing semantics is arguing the map. But the map is not the territory. There is no point to "arguing" semantics. It acomplishes nothing with regard to the territory. But there is a point to agreeing on semantics. It is the agreement on semantics that enables communication about the territory.

Insisting that all words must have specific meanings and cannot have any other meanings is tatamount to refusing to allow the expression of new ideas. It's pretty much the emitome of closed-mindedness.

Truly.

Not only that, but the people who resort to arguing semantics only do so because they have no meaningful knowledge of the territory.

It's just a diversion tactic is all.

Which is not the topic, and has not been claimed.

The topic is about who should have to foot the effort, those who use words in a unique way, or those that use the words in the common way?

Creative , semantics are only needed if you wish to have a meeting of the minds, you silly goose. You must have forgotten where you were for a moment there...lol

How true . . . they always think they know what they are talking about dont they . . .

I really like the sub-topic of 'show and tell' of real life semantic issues, with a food theme.

A friend once tried to order a quesadilla with no cheese.

Foot the effort toward what? Effort is expended toward achieving something. So the effort should be footted by whomever desires the achievement.

If the achievement is "to understand", then whomever desires to understand should foot the effort to understand.

If the achievement is "to be understood" then whoever desires to be understood should foot the effort to be understood.

Seems pretty simple to me.

It's when one expects another to foot the effort to achive their own purposes that problems arise.

And the one's who disagree always think they know what they're talking about too, don't they?

Or they think they know what the other person is talking about better than the other person does. And that is one of the things that causes problems.