3 ms·

Re your edit > but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame It's not the use of clear and precise language which is to blame, it's the attem

by gpm 5y ago

Re your edit > but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame It's not the use of clear and precise language which is to blame, it's the attempt to redefine existing imprecise language in an incompatible way to make it precise that is to blame. I'm all for adding a discussion of logic to math, and fallacies/biases to some sort of civics/philosophy style course. I don't think that's going to solve the problem that trying to redefine words out under people doesn't go very well though. It's not a logic problem, because logic relies on the definitions being agreed upon, and what you have here is one group trying to change the definitions in a way that makes everyone else wrong.

crazydoggers 5y ago
I agree with you here. But from my perspective I think that’s exactly what the article is doing. They’re talking about hydrogen burning in imprecise language and then they mix in oxidizers, a word with only a scientific definition (oxygen being officially named and discovered by Lavoisier in the 1700s) And then when scientists do invent new words so they don’t “redefine words out under people” they’re called snobs. Its why burning usually is talked about specifically as combustion if there’s any chance of confusion. For scientists it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I just think theres room to be precise and I do think it has value. Trying to understand one another can be hard… miscommunication sometimes result in horrible results. And science education and communication to the lay person has been an unsolved problem since antiquity when then Library of Alexandria got burned down by an angry mob. I still think we can all benefit from talking things over, trying to be open minded and having civil discussions like we’re doing right here. Communicating clearly never seems like a bad thing to me.

by gpm 5y ago

crazydoggers 5y ago

I agree with you here. But from my perspective I think that’s exactly what the article is doing. They’re talking about hydrogen burning in imprecise language and then they mix in oxidizers, a word with only a scientific definition (oxygen being officially named and discovered by Lavoisier in the 1700s) And then when scientists do invent new words so they don’t “redefine words out under people” they’re called snobs. Its why burning usually is talked about specifically as combustion if there’s any chance of confusion. For scientists it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I just think theres room to be precise and I do think it has value. Trying to understand one another can be hard… miscommunication sometimes result in horrible results. And science education and communication to the lay person has been an unsolved problem since antiquity when then Library of Alexandria got burned down by an angry mob. I still think we can all benefit from talking things over, trying to be open minded and having civil discussions like we’re doing right here. Communicating clearly never seems like a bad thing to me.