4 ms·

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a s

by Timon3 1mo ago

> If you read Plato, you will see that defining words that already exist in some universal way is pretty much impossible. This is a humanities question, not a scientific one. Nope. Just like it is okay for scientists in the field of biology to change the definition of "species" as used in their field, it is okay for the same to happen for the word "planet", even if the general public then argues everyone should use the updated definition in everyday language. That's how language happens and evolves, and that's how we got these words! If this were not the case, Pluto would never have been added as a planet. You were okay with every change until that point - yeah, of course you agree with the changes up to what you were taught, even if there's no argument for what makes them different! You have to understand: there's no conspiracy behind the IAU that's making people argue against you! It's literally just individual people disagreeing with your disagreement. --- Regarding your edit: > To help you to read more carefully and to apply context clues, the following is a quote from the article that this thread is about. > > To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent. “A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” says Kornfeld. In the article, I see literally no reason given by Kornfeld to assume anything but an honest disagreement. Okay, great, they think the definition should fulfill a requirement that the majority apparently doesn't see as necessary. How do they get from this to people inventing a reason to specifically exclude Pluto? There's no reason given to assume bad faith?

odyssey7 1mo ago
Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint? Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint. > as used in their field Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.
- Timon3 1mo ago
  Yes, very good, words can mean different things in different contexts! Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction. It's a simple concept: language changes, and the public likes to follow along with "mainstream" scientific use, even if often lagging behind.
  - odyssey7 1mo ago
    I’m the person who has been explaining that the meaning of words comes from how they are used, not from how committees define them. The committees might influence people but ultimately words’ meanings come from how they are used. If you require a scientific expression of this concept, you might find distributional semantics of interest[1]. When people change how they use a word, its meaning changes. Far from having a single, universal meaning, the word “planet” means a number of different things today depending on whom you ask[2]. I have been defending the right for myself and for others to continue using their own language, without harassment from others in the names of scientific bodies. There was a time when linguists would prescribe that words like “y’all” are incorrect to use, and people would be shamed and discriminated against for doing so. Armchair scientists are behind the linguists on this one. We have lost cultural heritage and seen beautiful dialects gradually shrink or disappear due to prescriptive linguistics, and we now understand the harms, and it’s time that it ended. Yes, people are free to use words in the ways that make sense and come naturally to them. No, it is not appropriate for people to treat others with disrespect for doing so. Harassment is harassment, bullying people into changing how they speak is bullying. This is not a philosophical point, it’s about being a decent person. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics [2] https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
    - Timon3 1mo ago
      Again, when you receive multiple comments disagreeing with yours and feel harassed, the likely reason is not a conspiracy to harass you until you change your mind. Of course everyone should be respectful, but as long as they're not deliberately piling on and just respond to your comment at a similar time, you have to respect their right to express disagreement just like you want the right to express yours.
      - odyssey7 1mo ago
        Be mindful of placing words into the mouths of others. A desire that certain people refrain from harassment is not a claim that a conspiracy exists. A lack of originality and self-awareness is not in itself a sign that someone is conspiring with other people who lack originality and self-awareness.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]

by Timon3 1mo ago

odyssey7 1mo ago

Species means different things in different contexts. Have you heard of species counterpoint? Nobody is saying biologists can’t use that word the way they see fit. It would however be ridiculous for them to ask me to stop referring to species counterpoint. > as used in their field Now you’re talking sense. I don’t care what they call Pluto at IAU meetings. You shouldn’t care what I call Pluto in my own home.

Timon3 1mo ago
Yes, very good, words can mean different things in different contexts! Now consider: the public still slowly but surely follows along with changes to the classification of species, so when e.g. a species is divided into two or more species, the general population that often encounters them will most likely refer to them separately too given enough time, and the same in the other direction. It's a simple concept: language changes, and the public likes to follow along with "mainstream" scientific use, even if often lagging behind.
- odyssey7 1mo ago
  I’m the person who has been explaining that the meaning of words comes from how they are used, not from how committees define them. The committees might influence people but ultimately words’ meanings come from how they are used. If you require a scientific expression of this concept, you might find distributional semantics of interest[1]. When people change how they use a word, its meaning changes. Far from having a single, universal meaning, the word “planet” means a number of different things today depending on whom you ask[2]. I have been defending the right for myself and for others to continue using their own language, without harassment from others in the names of scientific bodies. There was a time when linguists would prescribe that words like “y’all” are incorrect to use, and people would be shamed and discriminated against for doing so. Armchair scientists are behind the linguists on this one. We have lost cultural heritage and seen beautiful dialects gradually shrink or disappear due to prescriptive linguistics, and we now understand the harms, and it’s time that it ended. Yes, people are free to use words in the ways that make sense and come naturally to them. No, it is not appropriate for people to treat others with disrespect for doing so. Harassment is harassment, bullying people into changing how they speak is bullying. This is not a philosophical point, it’s about being a decent person. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_semantics [2] https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
  - Timon3 1mo ago
    Again, when you receive multiple comments disagreeing with yours and feel harassed, the likely reason is not a conspiracy to harass you until you change your mind. Of course everyone should be respectful, but as long as they're not deliberately piling on and just respond to your comment at a similar time, you have to respect their right to express disagreement just like you want the right to express yours.
    - odyssey7 1mo ago
      Be mindful of placing words into the mouths of others. A desire that certain people refrain from harassment is not a claim that a conspiracy exists. A lack of originality and self-awareness is not in itself a sign that someone is conspiring with other people who lack originality and self-awareness.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]