3 ms·

> The point is "depression" or "PTSD" probably don't exist among many others. There are perhaps dozens or hundreds of unique conditions currently lumped togethe

> The point is "depression" or "PTSD" probably don't exist among many others. There are perhaps dozens or hundreds of unique conditions currently lumped together because they present in vaguely similar ways - the good news is that we are making progress towards much more arguably "real" understandings, the bad news is we're still quite far away from diagnosing mental conditions with the same specificity we can diagnose cancers or viruses. One sees this in a bizarre number of fields, that specialists act as though the classifications actually be as rigid and objective as in, say, physics, and that something objectively is or is not something, and then debate it. I've actually read some debates between linguistics that are quite passionately debating whether something is an allophone of the same phoneme, or a different phoneme altogether, and I do not find such distinctions to be all that objective as the language they used suggests.

colechristensen 5y ago
Name magic. To know a thing's name is to have power over it. From ancient mythos to modern specialists and especially philosophy, naming things gets a whole lot of focus. It does because it is terrifically useful! Naming, separating, making distinctions, this is an essential part of understanding. However a whole lot of these kinds of debates don't acknowledge what kind of a debate they are actually happening. Is the subject of debate the limits of where a definition matches and were it doesn't? Is it whether the subject fits within already agreed limits? Is it really about an unspoken assumption that differs between the parties arguing? Many also don't address the quality of the definition. Is it a useful definition that represents defensible differences between "has this name" and "doesn't have this name" or is it an entirely arbitrary classification (say, look at the color spectrum and define areas which are red and which are orange; now zoom in on a boundary between the two, is there any defensible reason why the border should not be moved slightly to add one color to red? No, probably not) > I've actually read some debates between linguistics that are quite passionately debating whether something is an allophone of the same phoneme In this example are they really arguing about the something in question or are they arguing about the definition of "allophone" without realizing it. The followup question is "what is the reason why this edge case is relevant?" and "if this edge case isn't relevant, is the term 'allophone' even useful?"
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  > In this example are they really arguing about the something in question or are they arguing about the definition of "allophone" without realizing it. The followup question is "what is the reason why this edge case is relevant?" and "if this edge case isn't relevant, is the term 'allophone' even useful?" I do not believe they are arguing about the definition either, nor do I believe that the classification has any use as whichever way it falls changes nothing. Linguistics is a field plagued by classification for it's own sake, as many others are. Objects are classified but no conclusions can be drawn from the classification. — perhaps it is but simply a form of mental file organization.

colechristensen 5y ago

Name magic. To know a thing's name is to have power over it. From ancient mythos to modern specialists and especially philosophy, naming things gets a whole lot of focus. It does because it is terrifically useful! Naming, separating, making distinctions, this is an essential part of understanding. However a whole lot of these kinds of debates don't acknowledge what kind of a debate they are actually happening. Is the subject of debate the limits of where a definition matches and were it doesn't? Is it whether the subject fits within already agreed limits? Is it really about an unspoken assumption that differs between the parties arguing? Many also don't address the quality of the definition. Is it a useful definition that represents defensible differences between "has this name" and "doesn't have this name" or is it an entirely arbitrary classification (say, look at the color spectrum and define areas which are red and which are orange; now zoom in on a boundary between the two, is there any defensible reason why the border should not be moved slightly to add one color to red? No, probably not) > I've actually read some debates between linguistics that are quite passionately debating whether something is an allophone of the same phoneme In this example are they really arguing about the something in question or are they arguing about the definition of "allophone" without realizing it. The followup question is "what is the reason why this edge case is relevant?" and "if this edge case isn't relevant, is the term 'allophone' even useful?"

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
> In this example are they really arguing about the something in question or are they arguing about the definition of "allophone" without realizing it. The followup question is "what is the reason why this edge case is relevant?" and "if this edge case isn't relevant, is the term 'allophone' even useful?" I do not believe they are arguing about the definition either, nor do I believe that the classification has any use as whichever way it falls changes nothing. Linguistics is a field plagued by classification for it's own sake, as many others are. Objects are classified but no conclusions can be drawn from the classification. — perhaps it is but simply a form of mental file organization.