3 ms·

> However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. No it isn't, it's misleading. > It's like saying "Water wants to flo

> However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. No it isn't, it's misleading. > It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room" Equally unnecessarily misleading. Water doesn't want anything, and before you claim people understand that let me tell you, they don't. It's a common belief that water has memory, there's an entire industry based on the concept and people fall for it. Walk into any grocery store and there are shelves of very expensive little bottles of water (homeopathy) being sold as cures for all kinds of things, it's disgusting. > or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance" Also unnecessarily misleading. Such talk may be fine among experts who "get" that's it's not accurate, but when talking to general public one should speak accurately, not loosely and "hope" they get it because the reality is many if not most don't and take what you say quite literally.

kamaal 13y ago
This is basically debating semantics. Bacteria don't 'want' anything in a purely technical sense. But they will eventually develop/are developing resistance to antibiotics anyway. You seem to be stuck in debating about the right sentences to describe that. That should be least of our worries.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Semantics matter, communication is not possible without agreement on the meaning of words. And the OP made the argument, not me, I'm simply agreeing with his point that's it's wrong to personify evolution, it's why so many people don't understand it.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    It's far worse than that. Not on;y is it not possible to have semantic communication without a general agreement on the meaning of words, but at the same time perfect agreement is impossible. This is generally understood (and has been understood for a hundred years) to be one of the causes of linguistic drift. Humans aren't computers.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      No they aren't, which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things. Semantics matter. I tire of people insisting that I know what they mean when what it's not what they said. I don't read minds, I hear words; the words you choose have meanings and those meanings matter if you want to convey your ideas to me.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        > which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things. To some extent, but it is also impossible to do so perfectly. > Semantics matter. Semantic agreement is limited to the actual parties to the communication, and by location, place, time, and social context. You wouldn't explain something to a 5 year old the way you would a 25 year old and the same basic problems occur when you cross cultural or temporal boundaries. When linguists discuss language, they usually start by pointing out that human language is defined by usage, not by prescriptions regarding definitions or grammar. This is a critical difference between natural languages and computer languages. Computer languages rigidly conform to specifications. Natural languages only approximate the rules we use to describe them. So I think you are expecting too much from human communications.

kamaal 13y ago

This is basically debating semantics. Bacteria don't 'want' anything in a purely technical sense. But they will eventually develop/are developing resistance to antibiotics anyway. You seem to be stuck in debating about the right sentences to describe that. That should be least of our worries.

gnaritas 13y ago
Semantics matter, communication is not possible without agreement on the meaning of words. And the OP made the argument, not me, I'm simply agreeing with his point that's it's wrong to personify evolution, it's why so many people don't understand it.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  It's far worse than that. Not on;y is it not possible to have semantic communication without a general agreement on the meaning of words, but at the same time perfect agreement is impossible. This is generally understood (and has been understood for a hundred years) to be one of the causes of linguistic drift. Humans aren't computers.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    No they aren't, which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things. Semantics matter. I tire of people insisting that I know what they mean when what it's not what they said. I don't read minds, I hear words; the words you choose have meanings and those meanings matter if you want to convey your ideas to me.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      > which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things. To some extent, but it is also impossible to do so perfectly. > Semantics matter. Semantic agreement is limited to the actual parties to the communication, and by location, place, time, and social context. You wouldn't explain something to a 5 year old the way you would a 25 year old and the same basic problems occur when you cross cultural or temporal boundaries. When linguists discuss language, they usually start by pointing out that human language is defined by usage, not by prescriptions regarding definitions or grammar. This is a critical difference between natural languages and computer languages. Computer languages rigidly conform to specifications. Natural languages only approximate the rules we use to describe them. So I think you are expecting too much from human communications.