"Weird" words
Janet M. Lafler
>As book lovers, I assume we're all word lovers, so I'd like to know what
>your favorite words are, words you like or dislike, your favorite
>oddities of the English language.
I love to use old slang. My current favorite expression is "mash note."
It's a very useful term, for one thing; I've never quite seen another word
or phrase that fits the concept.
I've written (and sent) plenty of mash notes in my time.
/Janet
--
Send mail to: ja...@netcom.com
Jim Kasprzak
|>
|> As book lovers, I assume we're all word lovers, so I'd like to know what
|> your favorite words are, words you like or dislike, your favorite
One of my favorite words has always been "confluence". Both the mellifluous
sound of it, and the concept itself - flowing together - strike a pleasant
chord in my mind. I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
opportunity to use it.
My pet peeve of the English language is "every". I insist that it has one
"e" too many. I used to spell it "evry" in protest up until sixth grade or
so, but eventually decided that I wasn't having much success in defying the
entire English-speaking world.
Those British spellings with the superfluous "u"'s always grate on me as
well, but I can accept them in their native environment. What really, really
ticks me off is when some American decides to adopt that method of spelling
just because they think it looks neat.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| "Chicken Little tells you that the sky is falling, and
\_| even if it was, would you still come crawling back again..."
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Ted B Samsel
Billet-doux & orison & lagniappe.
--
Ted....
Mark Taranto
> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
> opportunity to use it.
If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
> My pet peeve of the English language is "every". I insist that it has one
> "e" too many. I used to spell it "evry" in protest up until sixth grade or
> so, but eventually decided that I wasn't having much success in defying the
> entire English-speaking world.
There is a law about the conservation of letters in the alphabet. For
example, all those "R"s that are dropped by Bostonians are picked up
by midwesterners & stuck into words like "Warshington." In order to
get that extra "e" in "Every," we've had to take them out of names
like "Herbek" and "Kasperzak" -- hence "Hrbek" of the Twins, and
Kasprzak of r.a.b.
Mark
Jeff Davis
>
>Billet-doux....
It was once my good fortune to write an advice to the lovelorn column in
the college paper entitled "Billet-doux and Don'ts". I had been reading
too much Peter DeVries, of course, and the editor shut it down after one
column.
--
Jeff Davis <da...@keats.ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
Tim Szeliga - NWS
discalced, nulliparous, preprandial, pralltriller, grace... A few more
of these and I'll be able to write my own Double-Crostic!
Drunkenness may be reprehensible in itself, Tim Szeliga
but as a control over schizophrenia, t...@snow.nohrsc.nws.gov
as Jung said Joyce used it, CURRENTLY READING:
it may have its merits. Operation Wandering Soul
Richard Ellmann a long the riverrun
Tim Szeliga Org: National Weather Service / Hydrologic Remote Sensing
UUCP: apple!netcomsv!frost!tim Internet: t...@snow.nohrsc.nws.gov
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ede...@pearl.tufts.edu
> In article <mefCAz...@netcom.com> m...@netcom.com (Mary Ellen Foley) writes:
>>p.s. zymurgy (the chemistry of fermentation) is interesting to me because
>>it's the very last word in my dictionary, and just because it looks so weird...
>
> Not very weird to a reader of rec.arts.brewing ... i.e. homebrewers.
> I think I've gotten manny a job intervieews because I've got
> Zymurgy listed as a hobby on my resume. People always stop and
> look it up, which gets you noticed I guess.
>
> Back to the subject:
> I always remember a passage in one of Hunter S. Thompson's books,
> "Fear and Loathing on the Campain Trail '72", I believe,
> were he mentions the word "vehicle", then contemplates what a
> weird word that is for a paragraph.
>
> Say it a couple of times ... "vehicle, vehicle, vehicle".
>
>
> John S. Watson wat...@ames.arc.nasa.gov
> NASA Ames Research Center
> #include <stddsclm.h>
I've noticed how this is true for any word. It only takes three or four
repititions for the word to lose its familiarity and meaning. There must
be a term for this phenomenon. If not, why not make one up here?\
Ed Dente
Steve Bookman
>kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
>> opportunity to use it.
>If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
>cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
>to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
Yes, Kuhn sure beats that word up mercilessly, but the book
is stellar.
Paul Callahan
>>kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
Yeah, whenever I hear the word "paradigm," I reach for my seltzer bottle.
Clarabelle knew the correct response to puffery. I haven't read Kuhn,
but my experience in Computer Science is that when a pretentious
researcher in the trendier subfields of CS has a vaguely stated,
untested idea that can't quite be called a theorem, or an algorithm,
or a data structure, it's all of a sudden a holy marvelous paradigm,
which means that the lesser researchers, who are mere technicians,
will be able to use it to develop lots of important theorems,
algorithms, and data structures.
Many of the ideas that are described as paradigms aren't at all bad in
themselves, but might just as well be called a "frameworks" or "general
schemes," neither of which sound half as pretentious to my ears, and
which are immediately comprehensible to those who haven't been exposed
to the "P" word.
--
'It would seem,' said Tristram, 'that we're all cannibals.'
'Yes, but, damn it all, we in Aylesbury are at least civilized
cannibals. It makes all the difference if you get it out of a tin.'
Anthony Burgess, _The Wanting Seed_
Paul Callahan
call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu
Rebecca Crowley
: I've noticed how this is true for any word. It only takes three or four
: repititions for the word to lose its familiarity and meaning. There must
: be a term for this phenomenon. If not, why not make one up here?\
A thorough investigation of the phenomenon can be found in Sartre's
_Nausea_, along with an excellent description of Sunday habits
of the bourgeoisie (granted, it's probably a bit dated by now,
but that whole church-walking-eating-drinking bit is really
amazing, in its ability to call forth such disgust at such
banality).
I wouldn't go so far as to say I *liked* it, but I will admit
to a certain fascination. Otoh, I read the first 30 pages while
I was in the beginning twitches of a migraine (either that, or
the first 30 pages gave me a migraine -- I've never felt like
risking another by rereading it), so perhaps my perceptions were
skewed.
Rebecca Crowley
standard disclaimers apply
rcro...@zso.dec.com
John McCarthy
paradigm. The height of something was reached in a report by Vaughan
Pratt entitled "Five paragdigms in programming" or something like that.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Mr. Macek
>>> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
>>> opportunity to use it.
>>If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
>>cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
>>to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
>Yes, Kuhn sure beats that word up mercilessly, but the book
>is stellar.
The book is great, but doesn't Mr Kuhn use the word "anomoly" about as much
as paradigm? It's been awhile, so I can't remember if that is the exact
word.
--
James Macek, student |jmm...@netcom.com
Georgia Institute of Technology |gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
School of Literature, Communications, and Culture |be...@yoyodyne.com.bs
Co-op at The Vulcan Science Academy
Robert Camp Miner
>In <23j1q4$1...@panix.com> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>
>>kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>
>>> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
>>> opportunity to use it.
>
>>If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
>>cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
>>to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
I don't like the word either, aesthetically speaking. Do you like the
book? If not, why not? What are your objections to its thesis?
>Yes, Kuhn sure beats that word up mercilessly, but the book
>is stellar.
--
auf wiederhoeren
- rcm
Mark Taranto
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>
>>> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
>>> opportunity to use it.
>> If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
>> cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
>> to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
> Yes, Kuhn sure beats that word up mercilessly, but the book
> is stellar.
Kuhn's imprecision of language (in particular the multiple usages of
"paradigm") make his work a joke. In addition, I disagree with his
thesis that scientific discovery is recolutionary in nature. I tend
more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
that truth lies somewhere between.
My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
Mark
Larry Gainor
In one of Roger Zelazny's books (I think the name is "Jack of Shadows") he
uses the word "quinopolous." The context involves a character who has
been kidnapped, rendered unconscious, and dressed in a jester's costume.
The character then discards his belled cap and "quinopolous." Thus, the
word would seem to refer to some item of a jester's costume or equipment
(perhaps the little wand they are sometimes pictured with?) Anyway, I
have never been able to find a definition to this word, and would
appreciate hearing from any r.a.b.ble who may have.
Thanks,
LG
ST40...@brownvm.brown.edu
>: repititions for the word to lose its familiarity and meaning. There must
>: be a term for this phenomenon. If not, why not make one up here?\
>A thorough investigation of the phenomenon can be found in Sartre's
>_Nausea_....
See also Walker Percy.
-Tim
Mark Taranto
I suspect that it is the belled hat. "Quin" means "five." A "polos" is
a conical shaped hat. I imagine that a "Quinopolous" is one of those
caps with five thingies sticking out of it with bells on the end.
Mark
Gerald Olchowy
>Kuhn's imprecision of language (in particular the multiple usages of
>"paradigm") make his work a joke. In addition, I disagree with his
>thesis that scientific discovery is recolutionary in nature. I tend
>more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
>that truth lies somewhere between.
>
Wouldn't it be better to say that scientific discovery is sometimes
evolutionary, as say with the development of the special theory of
relativity, and sometimes revolutionary, as say with the theory of
the photoelectric effect...with the revolutionary discoveries tending
to be prototypical examples of (to use the P-word) a paradigm shift.
Gerald
Larry Gainor
Thanks Mark,
I seem to remember the context suggesting that the quinopolous was
something else besides that hat, but I don't have the book in front of me
and I could easily be mistaken.
Also, I should point out that the word "quinopolous" is not found in the
OED, Websters 2nd or 3rd unabridged, or Mrs. Byrnes Dictionary. I'm sure
that there are other places that it is not, but these are the ones that
come to mind.
LG
Robert Camp Miner
>
>> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>
>>> kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>>
>>>> I'm also partial to "paradigm", but I never really get an
>>>> opportunity to use it.
>
>>> If you read Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION you will be
>>> cured of this. After reading this book, I have an overwhelming desire
>>> to vomit when I hear the word (be forewarned).
>
>> Yes, Kuhn sure beats that word up mercilessly, but the book
>> is stellar.
>
>Kuhn's imprecision of language (in particular the multiple usages of
>"paradigm") make his work a joke.
Could you
a) give some examples of Kuhn's imprecision
b) show what turns on these, i.e. show in what ways his imprecison vitiates his thesis or
undermines his main claims.
c) after having shown why Kuhn is wrong, elaborate on why his work is also a "joke."
(I'm assuming that error _can_ still be instructive and illuminating, and hence not deserve
to be called a joke. I want you to show that Kuhn is not only wrong, but so obviously
wrong that his work is a joke, from which little or nothing can be learned.)
> In addition, I disagree with his
>thesis that scientific discovery is recolutionary in nature. I tend
>more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
>that truth lies somewhere between.
Although Kuhn places heavy emphasis on the discontinuities of scientific discovery,
he also admits a significant degree of continuity. (Cf. Alasdair MacIntyre, "Philosophy
and its relationship to the past" [or something like this] in Richard Rorty and J.B.
Schneewind, eds. _Philosophy of History_ [I lack an exact citation at the moment])
>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
Your answers to the above questions will presumably shed light on how Kuhn fails
to qualify as a "real" philosopher of science. (My impression is that nearly
everyone in current philosophy of science would certainly not be so dismissive
of Kuhn, although most would probably maintain that his work has serious flaws and
difficulties, or at least leaves many unanswered questions.)
>Mark
>
BTW, I am not a fervent Kuhn adherent. I find his work intriguing but problematic, and I
would like to hear you enlarge on what specific aspects of his work _you_ find
problematic, and why.
Mark Taranto
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> I suspect that it is the belled hat. "Quin" means "five." A "polos" is
>> a conical shaped hat. I imagine that a "Quinopolous" is one of those
>> caps with five thingies sticking out of it with bells on the end.
> Thanks Mark,
> I seem to remember the context suggesting that the quinopolous was
> something else besides that hat, but I don't have the book in front of me
> and I could easily be mistaken.
> Also, I should point out that the word "quinopolous" is not found in the
> OED, Websters 2nd or 3rd unabridged, or Mrs. Byrnes Dictionary. I'm sure
> that there are other places that it is not, but these are the ones that
> come to mind.
Hmmm. Could it somehow be related? "Quin" as a prefix and "polos" as
a root (meaning a conical shaped hat) are both in the OED.
Mark
Mark Taranto
> Wouldn't it be better to say that scientific discovery is sometimes
> evolutionary, as say with the development of the special theory of
> relativity, and sometimes revolutionary, as say with the theory of
> the photoelectric effect...with the revolutionary discoveries tending
> to be prototypical examples of (to use the P-word) a paradigm shift.
I don't think that it is ever completely one or the other. However,
no new scientific discovery is exactly like any other. I suspect that
the entire range can be seen.
I don't mean to state that Kuhn had *nothing* to say. Certainly some
of what he said has value. And you are right that some scientific
discoveries fit more neatly into his schema. But he is such a poor
writer, and his language is so imprecise that any value he has is
obscured.
Mark
Jim Hartley
>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
>
In economics, Kuhn is *the* philosopher of science. To whom should
we look?
--
Jim Hartley
jeha...@ucdavis.edu
"I hate books; they only teach people to talk about
what they do not understand." --Jean Jacques Rousseau, author
Mark Taranto
r...@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Camp Miner) asks me several questions.
Rather than answer each one independently, I'll just say a few things
about Kuhn and where I feel he is wrong. I'll also attempt to explain
a few things that I said about him.
First, I no longer have a copy of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC
REVOLUTIONS, but I do have a copy of a paper he read just before
publication, which includes many of the same themes. Therefore, I
can't point to specific instances where he is imprecise in the book.
I do remember the impression that I had when I read it, that he
changed his definition of "paradigm" several times, and used the word
in a number of different ways.
In the short paper, he sometimes uses the word to indicate an
established theory, sometimes to indicate a set of rules for working
in the field, and he sometimes uses it to mean a benchmark against
which similar work should be compared. It is usually, though not
always, clear how he is using it. I remember it being much less clear
in his book.
In rereading the paper, my impression that he is a poor writer was
confirmed. When I said that his imprecision made his work into a
joke, I was overstating my beliefs for effect. I was hoping to
provoke discussion, and will willingly retract that statement.
Here are some of the points that Kuhn makes about paradigms in
science:
A paradigm is a widely accepted, fundamental scientific
achievement including theory and applications which points to
more research to be done.
Accepting a paradigm implies that the problem is solved once
and for all.
Paradigms provide rules for the game.
With a paradigm, the scientist doesn't explore the unknown,
but articulates the known.
When a new paradigm is accepted, the old one is rejected.
There can only be one paradigm per field.
The new paradigm usually comes about because troubles are
discovered with the old one.
Here are some of the problems I have with what he says. First, I
don't agree that accepting a paradigm implies accepting that a
problem is solved. It only means that we are willing to work with the
theory, and agree that it explains that which we now know. Validation
and a certain amount of skepticism is important when dealing with any
theory.
Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
the rules are separate from the paradigm.
Certainly *some* scientists explain -- but I don't agree that the job
of the scientist is to articulate the known. In fact -- I believe
that the the paradigm can change gradually (evolve) as scientists
discover new theories which support or enhance the existing theory.
Kuhn's claim that the new paradigms generally come along when trouble
is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
replace them.
Sure -- there are those theories which come about and completely knock
an old theory out of contention -- like the Copernican view of the
solar system. But even these theories are less revolutionary than
Kuhn would have us believe. The time was right -- and ripe -- for the
new view.
Lastly, I disagree with Kuhn's contention that there can only be one
paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
There is certainly some validity to what Kuhn says. The problem that
I see is that he universalizes when he should not. What he takes as
the norm are, in my opinion, special cases.
> (My impression is that nearly everyone in current philosophy of
> science would certainly not be so dismissive of Kuhn, although most
> would probably maintain that his work has serious flaws and
> difficulties, or at least leaves many unanswered questions.)
As I mention elsewhere, my experiences in the courses that I took as
an undergraduate at Villanova University and as a graduate student at
The University of Minnesota indicate otherwise. My professors seemed
to have little respect for Kuhn, and appeared to use him more as a
starting point, before exposing us to other views. That was a number
of years ago. It is possible that he is more respected now -- but I
suspect that new paradigms have come along, replacing his -- and he
will become forgotten. :-)
Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
Bertrand Russell.
Mark
John McCarthy
is Kuhn. His present attitude toward the word is like that of the
poet ... Burgess who later said,
Oh, yes, I wrote 'The Purple Cow'
I'm sorry now I wrote it
But I can tell you anyhow
I'll kill you if you quote it!
Mr. Macek
>Kuhn's imprecision of language (in particular the multiple usages of
>"paradigm") make his work a joke. In addition, I disagree with his
>thesis that scientific discovery is recolutionary in nature. I tend
>more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
>that truth lies somewhere between.
Ah yes, Einstein indeed. The man who could not understand the nature
of any quantum theory. That "God does not play dice with the universe."
I tend to agree with Bohr's rebuttal that Einstein doesn't have a clue
nor should he claim to know how He (God) runs the show. But I still
don't know how either man throw around the word God when neither could
provide evidence of one.
>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
Statements like this make one think if he/she should bother reading anything
by you. Wasted time indeed.
Jim
Ian G Batten
> My pet peeve of the English language is "every". I insist that it has one
> "e" too many. I used to spell it "evry" in protest up until sixth grade or
> so, but eventually decided that I wasn't having much success in defying the
> entire English-speaking world.
It depends on if you pronounce it evri or ev-er-i. In English English
both are used, even in words like ``everyday''. It's something of a
shiboleth.
ian
Mark Taranto
>> My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>> science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
> Statements like this make one think if he/she should bother reading anything
> by you. Wasted time indeed.
If you wish for clarification, just ask for it. You will find a
detailed list of problems that I see with Kuhn's ideas in an article
which I posted last night.
Have you read much Philosophy of Science besides Kuhn? I would guess
not, or you would understand the reasonableness of my above statement.
Mark
Sheila
discussion of words, and suggest that "chiral," or "chirality" is lovely.
"Alphabetize" is not bad. I noted one day, how I hated
"prioritize" (someone having bad-mouthed the word to me) - and planned
on extending the dislike to all *ize words, but found "alphabetize" to
be different.
"tug" is pleasant, actually, I love one syllable words, or thinking of them,
anyway.
Philosophy of science - I've noticed, planning to take philosophy classes
here, that the University of Maryland tends towards a very "philosophy of
science" philosophy department, and they have many classes over the
philosophy of physics etc. A trendy philosophy department?
Pardon my indulgence in subject shifting and irelevency, I am back from El
Paso, and wanted to greet r.a.b.
That's all, unless I want to discuss something I've recently read. Thank you.
--
she...@wam.umd.edu - construction zone, most likely a quote from
the old testament about horses, or the one in the Psalms about a unicorn,
which would have to be in the KJV. - feeling nostalgic?
Steven Cherry
[ assorted unmarked deletions follow ]
>Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
>Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
>the rules are separate from the paradigm.
Your own summary was "paradigms provide the rules of the game."
If x provides y, x is indeed separate from y. I think there are
similar problems with many of your other complaints. I disagree
with Kuhn possibly as much as you, and like his writing no more,
but I think you could read him more generously.
>Lastly, I disagree with Kuhn's contention that there can only be one
>paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
>the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
>to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
>reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
>they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
Here's another good example of what I mean. Even 15 years ago, when
I took mechanics, we were taught that the Newtonian laws were on
"approximately true" and "held only in the range above the micro and
below the astro" as one of my professors memorably put it.
>Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
>philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
>mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
>Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
>Bertrand Russell.
Astonishing that you would include Hempel, Carnap, and Russell (all
good choices) and not include Gustav Bergmann. You have Quine (not a
great choice, IMO) but not Goodman. And the fellow quoted below has
some cryptic things to say, but worthwhile nevertheless.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It is not how things are in the world that is s...@panix.com
mystical, but that it exists. -- Wittgenstein Steven Cherry
Patrick Kearney
Sorry . . .
--
************************************** " 'Tis very warm weather when
Patrick "I'll drink to That" Kearney * one's in bed.' "
c/o Hewlett-Packard * Jonathan Swift
1400 Fountaingrove Parkway * Journal to Stella
Santa Rosa, CA 95403. * Oct. 26 1710
*
INTERNET: pa...@sr.hp.com *
TELNET: (707) 577-3460 *
**************************************
Paul Callahan
>"Alphabetize" is not bad. I noted one day, how I hated
>"prioritize" (someone having bad-mouthed the word to me) - and planned
>on extending the dislike to all *ize words, but found "alphabetize" to
>be different.
One new-sounding word that comes up in CS fairly often is "disambiguate."
I like saying it, but to me it sounds like something one would do with
a meat cleaver (possibly, I'm thinking of "disembowel" and "amputate").
roger m squires
>
>... I want to get back to the
>discussion of words, and suggest that "chiral," or "chirality" is lovely.
>
I like the phrase 'tonging quahogs' in _Spartina_.
Suggestively whispering melodious disjointed phrases like
'tonging quahogs' or 'snagging tautogs' in someone's
ear sounds rather sexy.
>
>she...@wam.umd.edu - construction zone, most likely a quote from
>the old testament about horses, or the one in the Psalms about a unicorn,
So you're a _Unicorn Girl_? Try the _Unicorn Variations_
by Zelazny for a quote by an especially handsome and
intelligent Unicorn, and _Unicorns I Have Known_ and of course
_Unicornicopia; The Capture, Care, And Feeding Of Your
Own Pet Unicorn_ is a must read.
rms
Mark Taranto
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
>> Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
>> the rules are separate from the paradigm.
> Your own summary was "paradigms provide the rules of the game."
> If x provides y, x is indeed separate from y. I think there are
> similar problems with many of your other complaints. I disagree
> with Kuhn possibly as much as you, and like his writing no more,
> but I think you could read him more generously.
My summary was of what Kuhn said, not of what I agree to. He said
that paradigms provide the rules. I believe that the rules for doing
science do not change when the paradigm shifts. I see no
inconsistency here. You are right that I could be more charitable to
Kuhn, but I don't think he deserves it.
>> Lastly, I disagree with Kuhn's contention that there can only be one
>> paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
>> the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
>> to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
>> reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
>> they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
> Here's another good example of what I mean. Even 15 years ago, when
> I took mechanics, we were taught that the Newtonian laws were on
> "approximately true" and "held only in the range above the micro and
> below the astro" as one of my professors memorably put it.
But Kuhn's claim is that when a new paradigm takes over, the old is
completely junked. Were he right, you would never had been taught
Newtonian mechanics.
>> Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
>> philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
>> mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
>> Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
>> Bertrand Russell.
> Astonishing that you would include Hempel, Carnap, and Russell (all
> good choices) and not include Gustav Bergmann. You have Quine (not a
> great choice, IMO) but not Goodman.
I didn't mean my list to be exhaustive, and Bergmann and Goodman are
both good additions. Quine might not be in the same league as the
others, but his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is a good place to start a
discussion.
Mark Taranto
views so readily. I have already responded to this -- indicating that
I had posted a list of objections to Kuhn, last night.
Looking over his article again, I notice that Mr Macek dismisses my
comment about Einstein simply because he felt that Einstein
misunderstood quantum theory.
So, I have some questions for Mr. Macek:
Since you think that I am not worth reading because I
made a dismissive remark about Kuhn, do you therefore
also feel that you are not worth reading for making similar
dismissive remarks about Einstein?
Is it possible that my dismissive remarks about Kuhn *might*
be worth listening to (even if you disagree with me), since I
have read him, have read extensively in the field, and have
listed my reasons why I do not agree with his view of how
science is done?
Since you have dismissed Einstein's view on how science is done,
I have a few related questions:
Can you demonstrate why he is wrong?
Have you done the reading? In particular, have
you read Einstein's EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS? Or are
you making a judgement about how he did science without
having read the material?
While I have listed a number of objections to Kuhn, I've yet
to see any of his supporters give me a reason why I ought to
agree with him. Perhaps you could post a defence of Kuhn.
Mark
Meg Worley
> First, I no longer have a copy of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC
> REVOLUTIONS, but I do have a copy of a paper he read just before
> publication, which includes many of the same themes. Therefore, I
> can't point to specific instances where he is imprecise in the book.
> I do remember the impression that I had when I read it, that he
> changed his definition of "paradigm" several times, and used the word
> in a number of different ways.
That's a true enough charge -- I have the book here in front of
me -- and one that I was well aware of before reading it. For all
that, however, I never found an instance where Kuhn's amphiboly
trapped the reader in a larger ambiguity. His escape (Kuhn's, not
the reader's) may well be a funtion of his poor writing. Each
chapter flutters on with numerous restatements of the same ideas,
so that if you missed it the first seven times, don't worry, you'll
have eleven more chances. Here perhaps is an example of two wrongs
making a right.
Mark is right that *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* is
poorly written, but I wonder how much of it is the UC editor's
fault. Basically it suffers more from lack of editing (and proof-
reading -- it swims in typos) than lack of clear thinking on the
part of the writer.
> In rereading the paper, my impression that he is a poor writer was
> confirmed. When I said that his imprecision made his work into a
> joke, I was overstating my beliefs for effect. I was hoping to
> provoke discussion, and will willingly retract that statement.
This attack-retreat strategy is better suited to Michael MacDonald,
I have to point out.
> Here are some of the problems I have with what he says. First, I
> don't agree that accepting a paradigm implies accepting that a
> problem is solved. It only means that we are willing to work with the
> theory, and agree that it explains that which we now know. Validation
> and a certain amount of skepticism is important when dealing with any
> theory.
On the surface this may be true, but my limited contact with
physical scientists suggests that it is mere clothing, to be
taken off in private. I brace myself to be leapt upon by the
scientists of rab, but I think Kuhn is right: Upholders of
a particular theory have sunk their careers into it and cannot
maintain more than a veneer of skepticism.
> Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
> Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
> the rules are separate from the paradigm.
Paradigms point *away* -- away from areas of study that have been
declared unfruitful. In my book, that constitutes rules.
> Certainly *some* scientists explain -- but I don't agree that the job
> of the scientist is to articulate the known. In fact -- I believe
> that the the paradigm can change gradually (evolve) as scientists
> discover new theories which support or enhance the existing theory.
> Kuhn's claim that the new paradigms generally come along when trouble
> is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
> often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
> that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
> consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
> replace them.
That is *not* Kuhn's claim: You are reversing the terms. Kuhn
holds that old theories fall when new theories are sufficiently
lined up offstage to go on with the show. He supports the notion
that no matter how weak a theory-in-power, it will not fall *until*
a successor has claimed the crown.
Kuhn does not say that paradigms never evolve but that paradigm
shift (BOOM! Phlogiston's out, Lavoisier's in) is more likely.
> Sure -- there are those theories which come about and completely knock
> an old theory out of contention -- like the Copernican view of the
> solar system. But even these theories are less revolutionary than
> Kuhn would have us believe. The time was right -- and ripe -- for the
> new view.
Carl Hempel, whom Mark implies to be an heir to Kuhn, gives plenty
of examples to contradict this claim. I recommend *Aspects of
Scientific Explanation* and *Philosophy of Natural Science*.
As Kuhn notes, just because the time is right/ripe for a new view
does not mean that the new view will heave into sight. Nor does
it mean that the new view is less than revolutionary, as Mark
seems to think.
> Lastly, I disagree with Kuhn's contention that there can only be one
> paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
> the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
> to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
> reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
> they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
Engineer friends inform me that Newtonian mechanics is taught
them with the attitude that "It's wrong, but it's good enough
for what we're doing." If that is the case, I would contend
that Newtonian mechanics is not the ruling paradigm of our time
but a useful item in the toolbox of normal science. Are there
other examples of co-regent paradigms anyone can offer?
> There is certainly some validity to what Kuhn says. The problem that
> I see is that he universalizes when he should not. What he takes as
> the norm are, in my opinion, special cases.
I don't hold Kuhn up as perfect by any means -- I've attacked
the old lad myself on several occasions -- but I think Mark
does him wrong here. Instead, I think it is Mark who is
generalizing from a few counterinstances.
> Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
> philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
> mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
> Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
> Bertrand Russell.
These are fine recommendations (to whom I would add Paul Churchland
and Karl Popper), but I have to point out that none of them, as
far as I know (I could be *really* wrong here, but...), address
themselves to Kuhn's ideas.
How did I ever get myself into this? Somebody save me!!
Rage away,
meg
--
mwo...@mathcs.emory.edu: Oldest Living Emory Junior Tells All
William L. Houts
: Many of the ideas that are described as paradigms aren't at all bad in
: themselves, but might just as well be called a "frameworks" or "general
: schemes," neither of which sound half as pretentious to my ears, and
: which are immediately comprehensible to those who haven't been exposed
: to the "P" word.
I find that "models" almost always works as well as, or better than,
"paradigms" --and you don't sound like a Philo 101 student using it.
(I don't know about you, but my experience has been that the people who
use "paradigm" also tend to drop the name "Derrida" at the slightest
provocation.)
--
William L. Houts | / w | "Law, say the gardeners,
abr...@cyberspace.com | /\__R__/0 | is the sun."
-----------------------------------| _ M _ | WH Auden
"I told you so, Captain Squeaky!" | (_) (_) |
John S. Watson - FSC
This little dicussion on weird words reminded me to ask the net,
does anyone have a good book on the etymology?
Optimally, I'd like a book where I can look up a word or phrase,
and read about it's history.
For instance, the other day I was wondering, where the term "red herring"
came from. The Webster'sdictionary gives some information:
red herring n [fr. the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to
confuse hunting do] 1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a
dark brown colorgs 2: a diversion intended to distract attention from the
real issue
But it doesn't elaborate much on the stuff between the brackets.
Thanks,
John
John S. Watson wat...@ames.arc.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center
#include <stddsclm.h>
SCOTT I CHASE
>
>This little dicussion on weird words reminded me to ask the net,
>does anyone have a good book on the etymology?
I know that these is not exactly what you're looking for, but I want
to plug them anyway: William Safire has written a series of books
(collections of his essays on language, along with interesting letters
he has received in reply) which make for great reading on etymology.
They include _On Language_, _You Could Look It Up_, and three or four
others.
They are a little difficult to use as reference because they are not
systematically organized. But they do have good indices, so they
are usable. But most of the pleasure of these books is in the reading
of them, cover to cover.
Among the many essays therein are book reviews of many of the resources
which he relies upon when writing his column. You will probably find
some good leads for the kind of reference book you want.
-Scott
-------------------- Physics is not a religion. If
Scott I. Chase it were, we'd have a much easier
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV time raising money. -Leon Lederman
Anthony Wallis
> One new-sounding word that comes up in CS fairly often is "disambiguate."
I plead guilty !
I think I will switch to "monosemanticise". One more syllable.
Btw, I've yet to hear or see any "fenestra"-words used to talk about
window systems. For example, "a fully fenestrated user interface" or
"defenestrate to command-line mode".
--
to...@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
Jim Hartley
>
>I do remember the impression that I had when I read it, that he
>changed his definition of "paradigm" several times, and used the word
>in a number of different ways.
>
You are more correct about Kuhn's imprecision than you may realize.
Masterman showed that Kuhn had 21 (yep, twenty-one) different uses
of the word in TSOSR. (for anyone who wants the source: "The Nature
of a Paradigm," in _Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge_).
The imprecision of TSOSR was the reason I enjoyed the book so much.
I found the distinction between paradigms (however defined) and
"normal science" to be an interesting way to think about certain
things. I too believed that Kuhn was very imprecise, but that
didn't bother me too much.
Sometime after reading the book, I used the distinction between paradigms
and normal science as an analogy for a matter I was discussing. I
had two people lambast me for using paradigm improperly. I was a
little surprised by this since a) I thought I had made clear that
I was *not* trying to use Kuhn's concept exactly and b) I had no
idea that there was a single proper use of the term. Since then I
have avoided the term and have no plans to use it in the future--far
too much emotion surrounds the P-word.
Francis mentioned that Kuhn now prefers the term "exemplar." I had
an interesting conversation about this word with one of the aforementioned
individuals. After explaining that one should use paradigm properly,
he told me that I should develop an "exemplar" to elucidate the point
I wished to make. I tried to explain that one did not simply sit
down on a sunny afternoon and write up a new paradigm or exemplar, but
I got nowhere. Quite frankly, while I liked Kuhn's book a lot, I'd
be happy if I never heard about him again!
>Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
>philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
>mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
>Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
>Bertrand Russell.
Thanks for the list. I took a brief course on the Philosophy of
Science once--we studied Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend for
the most part. Interestingly none of them made your list.
It seems my remedial reading list just grew again. :-)
Jim Kasprzak
|> kas...@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
|> > My pet peeve of the English language is "every". I insist that it has one
|> > "e" too many. I used to spell it "evry" in protest up until sixth grade or
|> > so, but eventually decided that I wasn't having much success in defying the
|> > entire English-speaking world.
|>
|> example, all those "R"s that are dropped by Bostonians are picked up
|> by midwesterners & stuck into words like "Warshington." In order to
|> get that extra "e" in "Every," we've had to take them out of names
|> like "Herbek" and "Kasperzak" -- hence "Hrbek" of the Twins, and
|> Kasprzak of r.a.b.
If you think that's bad, it was spelled "Kasprczak" back in the Old Country.
But at least I know where the "c" went to. It was lost in a scuffle on Ellis
Island between a stubborn Polish farmer and a tired Immigration Services clerk.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| "Chicken Little tells you that the sky is falling, and
\_| even if it was, would you still come crawling back again..."
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Chris Brewster
> Here's another good example of what I mean. Even 15 years ago, when
> I took mechanics, we were taught that the Newtonian laws were on
> "approximately true" and "held only in the range above the micro and
> below the astro" as one of my professors memorably put it.
But Kuhn's claim is that when a new paradigm takes over, the old is
completely junked. Were he right, you would never had been taught
Newtonian mechanics.
This is a misunderstanding of Kuhn, which I believe he addressed in the
original book. He never meant or implied that Newtonian physics would
no longer be taught. His point is that, under the new PARADIGM (!) of
relativity, all the Newtonian concepts have to be conceived in a wholly
new way; for example mass has been transformed from a constant to a
variable, and it's now a form of energy. At non-relativistic
velocities, the math works the same as in Newton, but the larger
framework is completely different. In other "revolutions", the earlier
theory typically doesn't fare nearly so well as Newton did: Lamarck
was pretty well swept away by Darwin.
Chris Brewster E-MAIL ADDRESS: c...@cray.com
Stefan Michalowski
>
> If you think that's bad, it was spelled "Kasprczak" back in the Old Country.
>But at least I know where the "c" went to. It was lost in a scuffle on Ellis
>Island between a stubborn Polish farmer and a tired Immigration Services clerk.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> __ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
> ___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
Jim,
That doesn't sound right to my native-speaker's ear. Kasperczak would
be perfectly fine, as is Kasprzak. There used to be a Kasprzak radio
factory near Warsaw, by the way.
Stefan
Mark Taranto
> Mark writes:
>> In rereading the paper, my impression that he is a poor writer was
>> confirmed. When I said that his imprecision made his work into a
>> joke, I was overstating my beliefs for effect. I was hoping to
>> provoke discussion, and will willingly retract that statement.
> This attack-retreat strategy is better suited to Michael MacDonald,
> I have to point out.
Oh dear -- must I now resign my membership as part of r.a.b?
Incidently, Mike Morris also uses that strategy, frequently.
> On the surface this may be true, but my limited contact with
> physical scientists suggests that it is mere clothing, to be
> taken off in private. I brace myself to be leapt upon by the
> scientists of rab, but I think Kuhn is right: Upholders of
> a particular theory have sunk their careers into it and cannot
> maintain more than a veneer of skepticism.
Not the good ones. But yes, I've already admitted that Kuhn's
arguments have *some* validity.
>> Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
>> Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
>> the rules are separate from the paradigm.
> Paradigms point *away* -- away from areas of study that have been
> declared unfruitful. In my book, that constitutes rules.
Sorry, I don't buy this.
>> Certainly *some* scientists explain -- but I don't agree that the job
>> of the scientist is to articulate the known. In fact -- I believe
>> that the the paradigm can change gradually (evolve) as scientists
>> discover new theories which support or enhance the existing theory.
>> Kuhn's claim that the new paradigms generally come along when trouble
>> is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
>> often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
>> that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
>> consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
>> replace them.
> That is *not* Kuhn's claim: You are reversing the terms. Kuhn
> holds that old theories fall when new theories are sufficiently
> lined up offstage to go on with the show. He supports the notion
> that no matter how weak a theory-in-power, it will not fall *until*
> a successor has claimed the crown.
No, you are wrong here, Meg. Kuhn is quite clear in his statement
that new paradigms come about after a problem is discovered in the old
one. I refer you to his paper "The Function Of Dogma In Scientific
Research" -- starting 5-6 paragraphs from the end.
> Kuhn does not say that paradigms never evolve but that paradigm
> shift (BOOM! Phlogiston's out, Lavoisier's in) is more likely.
>> Sure -- there are those theories which come about and completely knock
>> an old theory out of contention -- like the Copernican view of the
>> solar system. But even these theories are less revolutionary than
>> Kuhn would have us believe. The time was right -- and ripe -- for the
>> new view.
> Carl Hempel, whom Mark implies to be an heir to Kuhn, gives plenty
> of examples to contradict this claim. I recommend *Aspects of
> Scientific Explanation* and *Philosophy of Natural Science*.
But remember that if Newton saw further, it is because he stood on the
shoulders of giants. Similarly, Einstein claims that his work in
relativity was evolutionary in nature.
>
>> Lastly, I disagree with Kuhn's contention that there can only be one
>> paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
>> the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
>> to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
>> reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
>> they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
> Engineer friends inform me that Newtonian mechanics is taught
> them with the attitude that "It's wrong, but it's good enough
> for what we're doing." If that is the case, I would contend
> that Newtonian mechanics is not the ruling paradigm of our time
> but a useful item in the toolbox of normal science. Are there
> other examples of co-regent paradigms anyone can offer?
But this *confirms* my point, and is a counterexample to Kuhn's.
> I don't hold Kuhn up as perfect by any means -- I've attacked
> the old lad myself on several occasions -- but I think Mark
> does him wrong here. Instead, I think it is Mark who is
> generalizing from a few counterinstances.
In science, only one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory.
As I said elsewhere, Kuhn's ideas lend themselves more to the soft
sciences than to the hard.
> These are fine recommendations (to whom I would add Paul Churchland
> and Karl Popper), but I have to point out that none of them, as
> far as I know (I could be *really* wrong here, but...), address
> themselves to Kuhn's ideas.
I'm not familiar with Churchland, but agree with Popper.
Interesting that none of the greats in the Philosophy of Science pay
any attention to Kuhn's ideas.
> How did I ever get myself into this? Somebody save me!!
There, there, Meg. Why don't you tell us about how you spent a night
in a Mexican jail. It is *much* more interesting than Kuhn.
Mark
Mark Taranto
> Mark Taranto writes:
> > Here's another good example of what I mean. Even 15 years ago, when
> > I took mechanics, we were taught that the Newtonian laws were on
> > "approximately true" and "held only in the range above the micro and
> > below the astro" as one of my professors memorably put it.
> But Kuhn's claim is that when a new paradigm takes over, the old is
> completely junked. Were he right, you would never had been taught
> Newtonian mechanics.
> This is a misunderstanding of Kuhn, which I believe he addressed in the
> original book.
Looking over his paper "The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research"
-- I do not believe that this is a misreading. He is *quite* clear on
the topic. He spends quite a long time discussing how older theories
are never taught to budding scientists -- and how this differs greatly
from other fields.
So far in this discussion, a lot pf people have been telling me that I
am wrong. But I see Kuhn writing exactly what I say he writes, and
see no one quoting any of his texts to show that my interpretation is
wrong. I would be thrilled to hear that Kuhn repudiated this view.
Where *exactly* is your source?
Mark
David Kassover
...
>
>It depends on if you pronounce it evri or ev-er-i. In English English
>both are used, even in words like ``everyday''. It's something of a
>shiboleth.
Well, as I sit here, I begin to find this interesting, but I must
go off and talk to some Injuns. From Injah.
By the way, to turn an immoral act into a legbone, all one needs
to do is move a dot from right to left...
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
lewis.h.mammel..jr
> Okay, you avid readers, when you come across a word you don't know, do
> you go look it up/get the idea from context/write it down on your words-
> I-need-to-look-up list and then lose the list (that's what I do)/ or what?
I learned of Sterculius, the Roman god of dung, from a work of
Mike Judge, in which Sterculius is conjured up by a mishap at
a vehicular exhibition.
Sterculius is briefly mentioned in one or two of the many
Mythological dictionaries, etc. that I consulted. One mentioned
that he is an avatar of Saturn. The dung-god idea becomes a little
less bizarre when one considers the agricultural significance.
I am left wondering what the primary sources of our knowledge
of Sterculius are, and how extensive that knowledge is. Perhaps
Mike Judge is a leading authority.
His name derives from stercus, latin for dung, and there are a number
of derivatives of this root in the OED, including stercoraceous
( dung eating ) stercoricolous ( dung living ) and, a little more
interestingly, Sterculia, a family of plants, named for the fetid
odor of some of them, which includes the cacao and the kola trees.
The OED mentions Sterculius in the etymology for Sterculia, but
has no entry for the dung-meister himself. Can you ever eat chocolate
ice cream again ?
Most fascinating was the term Stercoranism, applied to the doctrine
that the transubstantiated host of the sacrament retained its
character as it passed through the digestive tract.
Moving along, I found this statement, descriptive of Tinkerbell, in
Peter Pan, "She was slightly inclined to the EMBONPOINT." (Caps
are italics in the original. ) Embonpoint is French for "in good
condition" and means something like "pleasingly plump", I think.
What this means is just that every rendering ever made of Tinkerbell
is a lie, and that Cindi Lauper should have played her in HOOK instead
of Julia Roberts. ( I will say, though, that HOOK used a lot of
material that derived form the book, such as Peter's forgetfulness. )
An old favorite of mine is "disconsolately", as used in The Tale
of Mr. Jeremy Fisher - maybe because it reminds me of one of my
all time favorites "discombobulate" . This the type of word that
strikes my fancy - "bamboozle", "nincompoop", "brouhaha",
"flapdoodle" - but also words like "rambunctious", "perspicacity",
and "epistemological".
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Roger Lustig
>>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
>In economics, Kuhn is *the* philosopher of science. To whom should
>we look?
Isn't that a bit like saying, "In football, Bohr is *the* nuclear
physicist"? 8-)
Seriously, how about Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos?
How about a few philosophers of economics? I'll put in a biased
plug for Adolph Lowe here...
Roger
Jan Yarnot
>
>One new-sounding word that comes up in CS fairly often is "disambiguate."
>I like saying it, but to me it sounds like something one would do with
>a meat cleaver (possibly, I'm thinking of "disembowel" and "amputate").
In this case, I would prefer KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid.)
Actually, "kiss" is preferable almost everywhere....
(*grin* or do you think I'm still whining about RABbabe?)
--
---Jan Yarnot, net.grandma.-- | Mistakes are often the stepping stones
CSUS depends on my every word.| to utter failure.
Jack Campin
> This little dicussion on weird words reminded me to ask the net,
> does anyone have a good book on the etymology?
> Optimally, I'd like a book where I can look up a word or phrase,
> and read about it's history.
Try the Oxford English Dictionary (the whole unabridged complete monster).
For something more manageable, the Chambers Etymological Dictionary (long
out of print) is the best I've seen - try second-hand shops.
--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4192 FAX: 031 451 3431 INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk
JANET: possibly backwards BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet
frank.g.neves
>
> Billet-doux & orison & lagniappe.
> --
> Ted....
One of my favorite out-of-use words is "anent". I use it in memos and other
correspondence whenever I can. It's also a classic crossword puzzle word.
Frank
--
*************************************************************************
Frank G. Neves, R.Hy. | "Immanetize the Eschaton..."
Discl: No wife, no horse, no moustache | "Credo Quia Absurdum"
*************************************************************************
Francis Muir
John S. Watson wrote:
This little dicussion on weird words reminded me to
ask the net, does anyone have a good book on etymology?
Optimally, I'd like a book where I can look up a word
or phrase, and read about it's history.
Try the Oxford English Dictionary (the whole unabridged complete
monster). For something more manageable, the Chambers Etymological
Dictionary (long out of print) is the best I've seen - try
second-hand shops.
Chambers were excellent. Are they dead? Any thoughts on Skeat?
Fido
Tasgal Richard
>mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>>"paradigm") make his work a joke. In addition, I disagree with his
>>thesis that scientific discovery is recolutionary in nature. I tend
>>more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
>>that truth lies somewhere between.
>
>Ah yes, Einstein indeed. The man who could not understand the nature
>of any quantum theory. That "God does not play dice with the universe."
>I tend to agree with Bohr's rebuttal that Einstein doesn't have a clue
>nor should he claim to know how He (God) runs the show. But I still
>don't know how either man throw around the word God when neither could
>provide evidence of one.
That famous phrase of Einstein's was a rhetorical device, not an expression
of a rejection of quantum mechanics based on his beliefs about God. For a
review of Einstein's views on quantum mechanics see, for example, Abraham
Pais's biography.
A student in Literature, Communications, and Culture should know better.
>>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
>
>Statements like this make one think if he/she should bother reading anything
>by you. Wasted time indeed.
With great effort I suppress a snide rejoinder here.
>Jim
>
>--
>James Macek, student |jmm...@netcom.com
>Georgia Institute of Technology |gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
>School of Literature, Communications, and Culture |be...@yoyodyne.com.bs
>Co-op at The Vulcan Science Academy
--
\
Richard Tasgal \ "Do not urinate in the direction of the sun."
tas...@math.tau.ac.il \ - Pythagoras
\
Richard Bielak
[...]
I don't entirely agree with your summary of Kunh's ideas. See
comments below.
> A paradigm is a widely accepted, fundamental scientific
> achievement including theory and applications which points to
> more research to be done.
It seems to me that Kuhn defines paradigm as a framework within which
scientific work is done. The framework suggests which problems are
important and what questions make sense. Are we saying the same thing
here?
>
> Accepting a paradigm implies that the problem is solved once
> and for all.
>
A paradigm solves a problem, but more importantly a paradigm sets the
direction for future problem solving. It determines which questions
and problems are important and which aren't.
For example, before Dalton's Atomic Theory the problem of how to turn
lead into gold was considered worthy of research. After Dalton's
theory was accepted the question became meaningless, because lead and
gold were "elements" that could not be transformed into each other.
On the other hand, after Dalton questions like "what is the difference
between a mixture and a compound?" made sense.
When the assumption that atoms cannot be split was abandoned, the
problem turning lead into gold became meaningful and in fact it was
solved (of course, there is some engineering work to be done to make
production of gold practical :-) ).
> Paradigms provide rules for the game.
I's say that paradigm is a framework within which the game is played.
>
> With a paradigm, the scientist doesn't explore the unknown,
> but articulates the known.
Not true. The paradigm simply helps the scientist to formulate
questions and choose problems to solve.
>
> When a new paradigm is accepted, the old one is rejected.
> There can only be one paradigm per field.
>
I agree with you here. The old paradigms are often useful - the
Ptolemy (sp?) model of Earth-centered universe is still used by
navigators. But I doubt that research astronomers find much use for
Ptolemy.
> The new paradigm usually comes about because troubles are
> discovered with the old one.
>
I think this is true. The Ptolemy system was replaced by Copernican
system, because the latter simplified calculations of astronomical
events and it explained observations made by Galileo. Dalton's atomic
theory was very succesful in predicting proportions of substances
needed and produced in chemical reactions, even though until the end
of 19th centuary atoms were still considered "theoretical" entities.
>Here are some of the problems I have with what he says. First, I
>don't agree that accepting a paradigm implies accepting that a
>problem is solved. It only means that we are willing to work with the
>theory, and agree that it explains that which we now know. Validation
>and a certain amount of skepticism is important when dealing with any
>theory.
True. But you have to start somewhere. With Dalton you had to believe
that there are atoms, and then you've got some results.
I think that paradigm shifts are results of skepticism and willingness
to ask questions that the ruling paradigm doesn't answer.
>
>Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
>Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
>the rules are separate from the paradigm.
>
That's what I thought Kuhn said. Did I misread him?
[...]
>Kuhn's claim that the new paradigms generally come along when trouble
>is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
>often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
>that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
>consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
>replace them.
I disagree with you here. It's true that in the course of "normal
science" (as Kuhn calls it) new discoveries add to the current
framework. But every now and then there is a _revolution_ and the
current paradigm gets replaced. Often the old paradigms are forgotten.
Remember flogiston (sp?) theory of combustion?
[...]
...richie
--
* Richie Bielak (212)-815-3072 | *
* Internet: ric...@bony.com | "When I don't know what I'm doing, *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb | I'm doing basic research." *
* - Strictly my opinions - | - Wernher von Braun - *
Arlyn Newcomb
> I learned of Sterculius, the Roman god of dung, from a work of
> Mike Judge, in which Sterculius is conjured up by a mishap at
> a vehicular exhibition.
>
> Sterculius is briefly mentioned in one or two of the many
> Mythological dictionaries, etc. that I consulted. One mentioned
> that he is an avatar of Saturn. The dung-god idea becomes a little
> less bizarre when one considers the agricultural significance.
> I am left wondering what the primary sources of our knowledge
> of Sterculius are, and how extensive that knowledge is. Perhaps
> Mike Judge is a leading authority.
The connection between Saturn and Sterculius you noted reminded me
of something an acquaintance of mine (a great fan of astrology) once
told me about the zodiacal (??) significance of Saturn. It seems
the planet governs, among other things, long periods of nastiness
and arduous work which produce sublime fruits in the end -- a good
description of ancient agriculture if I ever heard one. :)
--
A society that gives to one class all the opportunities for
leisure and to another all the burdens of work dooms both classes
to spiritual sterility. --Lewis Mumford
aa...@Virginia.EDU| I do not speak for the Illustrious Institution
Arlyn Newcomb
> An old favorite of mine is "disconsolately", as used in The Tale
> of Mr. Jeremy Fisher - maybe because it reminds me of one of my
> all time favorites "discombobulate" . This the type of word that
> strikes my fancy - "bamboozle", "nincompoop", "brouhaha",
> "flapdoodle" - but also words like "rambunctious", "perspicacity",
> and "epistemological".
Let's not forget "kafuffle" from the Anne of Green Gables books.
Joann Zimmerman
>In article <CB6tB...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) writes:
>>One new-sounding word that comes up in CS fairly often is "disambiguate."
>>I like saying it, but to me it sounds like something one would do with
>>a meat cleaver (possibly, I'm thinking of "disembowel" and "amputate").
>In this case, I would prefer KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid.)
I've always seen the KISS principle as a design principle; it is quite
possible to have an excellently simple design but a beautifully
baroquoco execution. A case in point, artistically speaking, would be
the _Book of Kells_.
One can indeed use the word "disambiguate" and still say something
simple and intelligible.
--
And there you have several miracles, first among them the wonder of a three-
dimensional volume where black squiggles on white paper create worlds.
-- Melvin Jules Bukiet, on books
...!cs.utexas.edu!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!jzimm
Jim Hartley
>>In economics, Kuhn is *the* philosopher of science. To whom should
>>we look?
>Roger replies:
>
>Isn't that a bit like saying, "In football, Bohr is *the* nuclear
>physicist"? 8-)
Well, I suppose I now must rise to the defense of the profession.
[I don the breastplate of righteousness, wield the sword of the spirit
and bravely venture forth].
Not only is economics a science, it is one of the hardest sciences.
No less an authority than _Science_ magazine (with a name like that
you know it is good) did a survey a few years back and showed that
economics was the most mathematical of all the sciences, beating
out such pretenders to the throne as physics. As we all know, the
proof of being a science is how much math is used.
QED
>
>Seriously, how about Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos?
As I mentioned in another post, those three philosophers along
with Kuhn formed the basis of a class I took on the Philosophy of
Science. To see how they apply to economics, one could look at
Blaug: _The Methodology of Economics_. (That is a reference, not
a recommendation).
>How about a few philosophers of economics? I'll put in a biased
>plug for Adolph Lowe here...
>
The biggest modern philosopher of economics is undoubtedly Milton
Friedman (see _Essays in Positive Economics_). A good book, incidently;
Friedman writes well for an economist.
Historically, I tend to think of Alfred Marshall and Leon Walras as
the typical philosophers of economics, although there are many others,
e.g., Marx, Mill, who are worthy of consideration.
Matthew P Wiener
>Ah yes, Einstein indeed. The man who could not understand the nature
>of any quantum theory. That "God does not play dice with the universe."
>I tend to agree with Bohr's rebuttal that Einstein doesn't have a clue
>nor should he claim to know how He (God) runs the show.
Einstein certainly understood the nature of quantum theory. In fact,
he understood it very very well, as well as anyone did at the time.
Bohr never anywhere implied that Einstein was clueless.
>James Macek, student |jmm...@netcom.com
You fail.
>Georgia Institute of Technology |gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
That could explain it.
>School of Literature, Communications, and Culture |be...@yoyodyne.com.bs
Ah! Enlightenment.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Matthew P Wiener
>Kuhn's imprecision of language (in particular the multiple usages of
>"paradigm") make his work a joke.
No, it does not. What has happened is the amazing popular success
of his book has made "paradigm" into a generic allpurpose joke, and
the work suffers from it.
> In addition, I disagree with his
>thesis that scientific discovery is revolutionary in nature.
So what? That's not even Kuhn's thesis. Scientific revolutions do
occur, and Kuhn's work is about _them_. Perhaps you should reread
at least the title of his book? Uh duh.
> I tend
>more towards Einstein's claim that it is evolutionary -- but grant
>that truth lies somewhere between.
Einstein was a modest participant.
>My opinion is that time should be spent reading *real* philosophers of
>science -- rather than wasted with Kuhn.
Kuhn isn't a waste. Taranto is.
Sara Larson
There is a law about the conservation of letters in the
alphabet. For example, all those "R"s that are dropped
by Bostonians are picked up by midwesterners & stuck
into words like "Warshington."
Look, bud. No one in the state of Washington, that I ever met,
pronounced it "Warshington". And Washingtonians are considered
to speak with that midwestern sound. For some reason, only
people from out of state pronounced it with the extra "r".
Besides, don't Bostonians achieve alphabet conservation by
re-adding those hapless "r"s to the ends of words like
"banana(r)" and "Georgia(r)"?
-Sara
Chris Brewster
> Engineer friends inform me that Newtonian mechanics is taught
> them with the attitude that "It's wrong, but it's good enough
> for what we're doing." If that is the case, I would contend
> that Newtonian mechanics is not the ruling paradigm of our time
> but a useful item in the toolbox of normal science. Are there
> other examples of co-regent paradigms anyone can offer?
But this *confirms* my point, and is a counterexample to Kuhn's.
I disagree that the position of classical physics within relativistic
physics confirms your point or refutes Kuhn's. The math works in the
classical way only because relativistic correction factors drop out at
normal velocities. But terms such as mass have completely different
meanings than they had for Newton.
Rebecca Crowley
: Look, bud. No one in the state of Washington, that I ever met,
: pronounced it "Warshington". And Washingtonians are considered
: to speak with that midwestern sound. For some reason, only
: people from out of state pronounced it with the extra "r".
: -Sara
Well, as a native Washingtonian, I can tell you a couple of things.
(1) I know people who've lived in the state longer than I
have who pronounce it "Warshington". They weren't born here.
They lived somewhere else (in the Midwest, actually) for longer
before moving here. They also say "nookular" and "warsh".
They do not, however, say "tru-uck", so we know they aren't
Texan. They also successfully pronounce "Michigan" with a
"sh" sound, so we have reason to believe they are civilized.
(2) Washingtonians do not speak and are not commonly considered to
speak with a Midwestern accent. Consensus around here seems to be
that we speak English without any accent at all. This may
well be an Washington-centric viewpoint. ;-) We do *not*
sound like people from, say Iowa. Or even Colorado. Heck,
with a good ear, you can recognize the difference between
our speech, and a Californian who's attempting to pass as a
native (I will grant that content of speech may be supplying
an unfair number of additional clues. A fair test would
require both victims to read a set text.).
(3) Most of the above two claims are biased to Western Washington
(specifically, in and around Seattle). I've never established
whether I just happened to meet people from the other side
who had strange accents, or if everyone Over There 'talked that
way'. Any natives of Spokane interested in contributing? Ellensburg?
Pullman? Quit tipping those cows and join into civilized discourse,
why don't you.
And finally,
(4) Natives who leave the state and live for extended periods
of time in places like Boston and New Jersey often lose our pristine
speech, and will even (*gasp*) occasionally start to say
"Warshington". My eldest sister does this now. But she lives
in the Plainfields, so I suppose that's reason enough.
obBooks: Pygmalion is a better read than My Fair Lady. Slap
a big IMO on that, and everything above.
Rebecca Crowley
standard disclaimers apply
rcro...@zso.dec.com
Jon Browning
>
> r...@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Camp Miner) asks me several questions.
> Rather than answer each one independently, I'll just say a few things
> about Kuhn and where I feel he is wrong. I'll also attempt to explain
> a few things that I said about him.
>
> First, I no longer have a copy of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC
> REVOLUTIONS, but I do have a copy of a paper he read just before
> publication, which includes many of the same themes. Therefore, I
> can't point to specific instances where he is imprecise in the book.
> I do remember the impression that I had when I read it, that he
> changed his definition of "paradigm" several times, and used the word
> in a number of different ways.
>
> established theory, sometimes to indicate a set of rules for working
> in the field, and he sometimes uses it to mean a benchmark against
> which similar work should be compared. It is usually, though not
> always, clear how he is using it. I remember it being much less clear
> in his book.
>
> In rereading the paper, my impression that he is a poor writer was
> confirmed. When I said that his imprecision made his work into a
> joke, I was overstating my beliefs for effect. I was hoping to
> provoke discussion, and will willingly retract that statement.
>
> science:
>
> A paradigm is a widely accepted, fundamental scientific
> achievement including theory and applications which points to
> more research to be done.
>
> and for all.
>
>
> but articulates the known.
>
> There can only be one paradigm per field.
>
> discovered with the old one.
>
> don't agree that accepting a paradigm implies accepting that a
> problem is solved. It only means that we are willing to work with the
> theory, and agree that it explains that which we now know. Validation
> and a certain amount of skepticism is important when dealing with any
> theory.
>
> Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
> the rules are separate from the paradigm.
>
> of the scientist is to articulate the known. In fact -- I believe
> that the the paradigm can change gradually (evolve) as scientists
> discover new theories which support or enhance the existing theory.
> is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
> often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
> that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
> consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
> replace them.
>
> an old theory out of contention -- like the Copernican view of the
> solar system. But even these theories are less revolutionary than
> Kuhn would have us believe. The time was right -- and ripe -- for the
> new view.
>
> paradigm. The relativistic view of mechanics has certainly replaced
> the Newtonian view. But Newton's mechanics are still taught (contrary
> to what Kuhn's theory would support) and they are still used. The
> reason for this is that although we know that they are not "right" --
> they still provide a close enough approximation for us.
>
> I see is that he universalizes when he should not. What he takes as
> the norm are, in my opinion, special cases.
>
> > (My impression is that nearly everyone in current philosophy of
> > science would certainly not be so dismissive of Kuhn, although most
> > would probably maintain that his work has serious flaws and
> > difficulties, or at least leaves many unanswered questions.)
>
> As I mention elsewhere, my experiences in the courses that I took as
> an undergraduate at Villanova University and as a graduate student at
> The University of Minnesota indicate otherwise. My professors seemed
> to have little respect for Kuhn, and appeared to use him more as a
> starting point, before exposing us to other views. That was a number
> of years ago. It is possible that he is more respected now -- but I
> suspect that new paradigms have come along, replacing his -- and he
> will become forgotten. :-)
>
> Steve Bookman (ste...@panix.com) asks me to suggest people in the
> philosophy of science whom I do think are worth reading. I've already
> mentioned Norwood Hanson. Others worth reading are Carl Hempel,
> Rudolph Carnap, Grover Maxwell, W. V. O Quine, David Bohm, and
> Bertrand Russell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Actually what Kuhn says is that one paradigm replaces another when: A. The
proponents of the old one die (some people will never believe they were
wrong) and B. When it becomes obvious to all that the new paradigm leaves
fewer unsolved problems than the old and/or allows an explanation of old
issues in a way that makes more sense. When you read Kuhn's book, he clearly
states that he means for his work to be dynamic--in the reprinted version he
even adds afterthoughts.
Question: Since you are such a critique of Kuhn, what concepts do you
substitute to cover the idea of transformation from one "S" curve to another?
Jon Browning JEBROWN@erenj.c
Keith Morgan
Mary Ellen Foley writes:
As book lovers, I assume we're all word lovers, so I'd like to know what
your favorite words are, words you like or dislike, your favorite
oddities of the English language...
Chryselephantine - a beautiful word.
Keith
--
Keith Morgan
kamo...@athena.mit.edu
Jim Kasprzak
|>
|> Most fascinating was the term Stercoranism, applied to the doctrine
|> that the transubstantiated host of the sacrament retained its
|> character as it passed through the digestive tract.
or astonishment...
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
J W Dalton
>But Kuhn's claim is that when a new paradigm takes over, the old is
>completely junked. Were he right, you would never had been taught
>Newtonian mechanics.
1. Maybe the new paradigm hasn't taken over. You can find people
defending pre-relativity and pre-QM physics on the net.
2. Maybe I wasn't taught Newtonian mechanics, only a new mechanics
that's called Newtonian but is incommensurable with actual Newtonian
Mechanics. (Even though it looks pretty similar to the pre-Kuhnian.)
Re incommensurable: I think it's worth reading Davidson's paper
"On the very idea of a conceptual scheme" (in his collection on
something and truth rather than the one on actions and events)
and what Feyerabend says on translation in _Farewell to Reason_.
-- jd
J W Dalton
>In science, only one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory.
Where is Lakatos when we need him?
-- jd
J W Dalton
>Philosophy of science - I've noticed, planning to take philosophy classes
>here, that the University of Maryland tends towards a very "philosophy of
>science" philosophy department, and they have many classes over the
>philosophy of physics etc. A trendy philosophy department?
Humm. When I was at Dartmouth (late 70s) there was no philosophy of
science course in the philosophy department; to get phil of sci, I
had to go to the Religion department! (That course was pretty good,
BTW.)
-- jd
Jack Campin
>>> anyone have a good book on etymology? Optimally, I'd like a book where
> Try the Oxford English Dictionary (the whole unabridged complete monster).
>> For something more manageable, the Chambers Etymological Dictionary (long
>> out of print) is the best I've seen - try second-hand shops.
> Chambers were excellent. Are they dead? Any thoughts on Skeat?
Chambers are still going - I walk past their Edinburgh warehouse every week
or so. It's just the etymological dictionary I haven't seen in a while.
Their Twentieth Century Dictionary is still in print and regularly updated;
it's the best in its size range. Enough Scots words to cover what most
non-Scots might need to know, but not disproportionately many. It's the
standard one for use with Scrabble. Has a lot of the content of the
etymology dictionary. It's the book that did most for my vocabulary; when
I was 12 I got hepatitis A and spent 3 weeks in bed, devoting my time to
two books. One was "The Plains of Abraham", an account of the conquest of
Quebec of which I can recall nothing except some gruesome torture scenes.
The other was the Chambers 20th Century. I spent hours flipping from one
definition to another following every word I didn't know. My vocabulary
ballooned. The narrative structure of a dictionary is ideal reading when
you have a condition that makes you throw up at random intervals. (Could
this be a new thread? Ideal reading to go with specific diseases?... let
me also recommend Russell Hoban's "Kleinzeit" for when you have something
painful, undiagnosed and possibly fatal, but it had better not hurt to laugh).
I use the 1906 Chambers dictionary in my office here; it's only very rarely
I have to go beyond it to the OED.
My favourite weird word is "omneity", one of those I owe to hepatitis.
I was *amazed* when the systems manager at Glasgow used it to name an
AppleTalk domain on our local network. I never expected to see it anywhere
but in commentaries on Plotinus.
Sorry, Skeat impinges so little on my consciousness I didn't even realize
Chambers published him. If so, I assume he's still in print.
Jim Kasprzak
|>
|> There is a law about the conservation of letters in the
|> alphabet. For example, all those "R"s that are dropped
|> by Bostonians are picked up by midwesterners & stuck
|> into words like "Warshington."
|>
|> Look, bud. No one in the state of Washington, that I ever met,
|> pronounced it "Warshington". And Washingtonians are considered
|> to speak with that midwestern sound.
different from those on the East Coast. I think the Midwesterners
that Mark was referring to are those in, say, Missouri or Nebraska.
|> Besides, don't Bostonians achieve alphabet conservation by
|> re-adding those hapless "r"s to the ends of words like
|> "banana(r)" and "Georgia(r)"?
The rule for Bostonian final-r addition is this: if the word ends in "a"
and the word immediately following begins with a vowel, you add an "r".
Thus, you'd say "There's a bananar in your ear", but it's "banana boat"
with no "r".
Francis Muir
Sorry, Skeat impinges so little on my consciousness I didn't
even realize Chambers published him. If so, I assume he's
still in print.
Goodness Gracious! I've caught Campin out...I was refering to Skeat's
ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY which was published by OUP. Nothing to do with
Chambers. I thought Jack might have an opinion. Chaucerian scholar and
friend and colleague of Lewis Carroll, I believe. Chambers adds some
credence to the old notion that Edinburgh is (was) the Athens of the
North.
Fido
Jeffrey Klein
>> she...@wam.umd.edu (Sheila) writes:
>>she...@wam.umd.edu - construction zone, most likely a quote from
>>the old testament about horses, or the one in the Psalms about a unicorn,
>
> So you're a _Unicorn Girl_? Try the _Unicorn Variations_
> by Zelazny for a quote by an especially handsome and
> intelligent Unicorn, and _Unicorns I Have Known_ and of course
> _Unicornicopia; The Capture, Care, And Feeding Of Your
> Own Pet Unicorn_ is a must read.
I rather enjoyed Dan O'Neill's _The Great Unicorn Hunt_.
-Jeff ("I'll do it! But there have to be lots of dead elves...")
David Kassover
...
>
>Let's not forget "kafuffle" from the Anne of Green Gables books.
>
be evident from context.
Is it perhaps related to kaflefle?
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
David Kassover
>
> As book lovers, I assume we're all word lovers, so I'd like to know what
> your favorite words are, words you like or dislike, your favorite
> oddities of the English language...
>
I'm somewhat fond of the lyric to "Irish Washerwoman":
Paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde
Matthew P Wiener
>In science, only one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory.
You mean, "in mathematics".
Jim Kasprzak
|> > Mary Ellen Foley writes:
|> > As book lovers, I assume we're all word lovers, so I'd like to know what
|> > your favorite words are, words you like or dislike, your favorite
|> > oddities of the English language...
|>
|> I'm somewhat fond of the lyric to "Irish Washerwoman":
|>
|> Paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde
verses of this explain why I'm always wary of drinking with chemists:
Whisky, tequila and rum are too tame,
No, the stuff that I drink must explode into flame
When I breathe, and dissolve all the paint in the room
As it rattles the ground with an earth-shaking boom.
Personally I'm more of a cryo than a pyro. I get more fun out of
liquid nitrogen than nitroglycerine.
Katherine M. Catmull
Skeat is great fun to read but mostly quite wrong in his etymologies,
I believe, if you care about that. He's useful if you're reading Gerard
Manley Hopkins, though, because Hopkins read him carefully and Skeat's
etymologies (in this former scholar's humble opinion) inform his poems
greatly.
Kate
--
- - - - - - - -
ka...@cactus.org
Be the voice of night and Florida in my ear.
Mark Taranto
ric...@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) points out several passages
where he feels that I have misinterpreted Kuhn. I do not feel that I
have, and, here, provide direct quotations from Kuhn's paper "The
Function of Dogma in Scientific Research, which he claims is a summary
of his book on scientific revolutions.":
Richard writes:
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
> I don't entirely agree with your summary of Kunh's ideas. See
> comments below.
>> A paradigm is a widely accepted, fundamental scientific
>> achievement including theory and applications which points to
>> more research to be done.
> It seems to me that Kuhn defines paradigm as a framework within which
> scientific work is done. The framework suggests which problems are
> important and what questions make sense. Are we saying the same thing
> here?
As has been pointed out, Kuhn works with several definitions of
Paradigm. As for the above, decide for yourself if it is an accurate
representation of what Kuhn said. He writes:
It [a paradigm] is in the first place, a fundamental
scientific achievement and one which includes both a theory
and some exemplary applications to the results of experiment
and observation. More important, it is an open ended
achievement, one which leaves all sorts of research still to
be done. And, finally, it is an accepted achievement . . . .
>> Accepting a paradigm implies that the problem is solved once
>> and for all.
> A paradigm solves a problem, but more importantly a paradigm sets the
> direction for future problem solving. It determines which questions
> and problems are important and which aren't.
I agree that is how it should be. Kuhn makes some of these points.
As for my interpretation listed above, Kuhn actually writes:
In receiving a paradigm the scientific community commits
itself, consiously or not, to the view that the fundamental
problems there resolved have, in fact, been solved once and
for all.
>> Paradigms provide rules for the game.
> I's say that paradigm is a framework within which the game is played.
I would, too, Richard. But Kuhn writes:
The paradigm he has aquired through prior training provides
him with the rules of the game . . . .
>> With a paradigm, the scientist doesn't explore the unknown,
>> but articulates the known.
> Not true. The paradigm simply helps the scientist to formulate
> questions and choose problems to solve.
Again, Richard, you and I are in agreement. This is *not* true.
However, Kuhn writes:
Given that paradigm and the requisite confidence in it, the
scientist largely ceases to be an explorer at all, or at least
to be an explorer of the unknown. Instead, he struggles to
articulate and concretize the known . . . .
Elsewhere he writes:
Rather than resembling exploration, normal research seems like
the effort to assemble a Chinese cube whose finished outline
is known from the start.
[Three points where Richard agrees that I am interpreting Kuhn
correctly deleted. He agrees with my objection of two, on the other,
he agrees with Kuhn.]
>> Also -- I do not believe that paradigms provide the rules of the game.
>> Yes, they do point to areas where there might be fruitful study -- but
>> the rules are separate from the paradigm.
> That's what I thought Kuhn said. Did I misread him?
He does* claim that paradigms point to areas of fruitful study, but he
claims that the rules are part of the paradigm.
>> Kuhn's claim that the new paradigms generally come along when trouble
>> is found with the old one is just false. It is false because more
>> often than not, the new paradigm encompasses the old one. I claim
>> that the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are
>> consistent with existing paradigms, and add to them, rather than
>> replace them.
> I disagree with you here. It's true that in the course of "normal
> science" (as Kuhn calls it) new discoveries add to the current
> framework. But every now and then there is a _revolution_ and the
> current paradigm gets replaced. Often the old paradigms are forgotten.
> Remember flogiston (sp?) theory of combustion?
I agree with you completely about how sometimes a new paradigm will
replace an old one. My point is that more often, a new paradigm comes
along which *encompasses* the old one. A paradigm shift need not be
a revolution.
I believe that you and I are in agreement on most of the fundamental
points. Where we differ is that you think that you and Kuhn agree,
while I do not.
I hope that the quotations which I have provided show that I have not
misinterpretted Kuhn. If anyone can provide textual evidence that
Kuhn later repudiated these idea, I'll be happy to take back
everything I've said about him (except that he does not write well).
Mark
David Kassover
...
>
> Personally I'm more of a cryo than a pyro. I get more fun out of
>liquid nitrogen than nitroglycerine.
That's what you get for working with liquid cooled computers, I
suppose.
Mark Taranto
>In article <23k81m$c...@panix.com>, mtaranto@panix (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> In addition, I disagree with his thesis that scientific discovery is
>> revolutionary in nature.
> So what? That's not even Kuhn's thesis. Scientific revolutions do
> occur, and Kuhn's work is about _them_. Perhaps you should reread
> at least the title of his book? Uh duh.
Matt, my point is not that scientific revolutions do not occur, but
that the vast majority of scientific discoveries do not come from
revolutionary paradigm shifts. Kuhn is quite clear that he believes
that discovery is revolutionary in nature, while most scientists
merely "articulate the known." (see my other posts for references)
> Kuhn isn't a waste. Taranto is.
Matt, I started out this thread with some bombastic statements about
Kuhn. But I followed them up with a list of Kuhn's beliefs, and a
list of reasons why I object to them. When people told me that I
misinterpreted Kuhn, I listed direct quotations which support my
interpretation. You might not agree with me, but I've proven that
I've done the reading.
Now that you've made *you're* bombastic statements, it is time to put
up or shut up. If you feel that I am wrong about Kuhn, let's see some
textual support.
I know enough about logic not to be swayed by your ad hominem attack.
If you've got something of substance, I'm willing to listen, and
perhaps be persuaded that Kuhn is worthwhile.
Mark
Mark Taranto
> There is a law about the conservation of letters in the
> alphabet. For example, all those "R"s that are dropped
> by Bostonians are picked up by midwesterners & stuck
> into words like "Warshington."
> Look, bud.
Smile when you call me that.
> No one in the state of Washington, that I ever met,
> pronounced it "Warshington". And Washingtonians are considered
> to speak with that midwestern sound. For some reason, only
> people from out of state pronounced it with the extra "r".
I like to think of Washington as a Western state -- but I'm willing to
be convinced otherwise.
My grandmother and my uncles (on my mother's side) all said "Warsh"
and "Warshington." They are from Minnesota. Harry Reasoner (from the
Dakotas, educated in Minnesota) also stuck it in there. My uncles (on
my father's side) all had heavy Boston accents, and drop the "r" on
many words. It was fun to get them together. My mother trained my
father to pronounce the letter "r" -- although he will occasionally
slip, when he encounters a word or phrase that he hasn't used in years
(like the Christmas that he gave me a "popcahn poppah").
> Besides, don't Bostonians achieve alphabet conservation by
> re-adding those hapless "r"s to the ends of words like
> "banana(r)" and "Georgia(r)"?
Yes they do. But more "r"s are dropped than shifted. Certain New
York accents (like Joey Buttafuoco's) also shift around the "r."
Mark
Mark Taranto
>mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> But Kuhn's claim is that when a new paradigm takes over, the old is
>> completely junked. Were he right, you would never had been taught
>> Newtonian mechanics.
> 1. Maybe the new paradigm hasn't taken over. You can find people
> defending pre-relativity and pre-QM physics on the net.
Maybe -- but if this were the case, then there is a *different*
problem with Kuhn. He stated that there can only be one paradigm, and
this would imply that there are two.
> 2. Maybe I wasn't taught Newtonian mechanics, only a new mechanics
> that's called Newtonian but is incommensurable with actual Newtonian
> Mechanics. (Even though it looks pretty similar to the pre-Kuhnian.)
Funny!
Maybe you weren't taught Newtonian mechanics. But I was.
Mark
Joseph M Green-1
>Jack Campin writes:
> Fido
Yes -- Skeats was Joyce's favorite reading. Those puzzled by
"tundish" in APOTAAAYM (is it a stout old Irish word?)
should check it out in Skeats and enjoy some of Joyce's
duplicity.
Joseph M Green-1
Exactly right. Hopkin's fans should also pursue relevant
issues of -The Lancet- to explore Hopkins' fascination
with tumors and his guilt over the sin of "dangerous looking."
Ted B Samsel
Liquid nitrogen....takes me back to '68 & '69 when I collected
for the world's largest rat sperm bank. (The labs in Bah Hahbah,
ME). Cryogenics can be "fun". But don't forget the asbestos
mitts.
--
Ted....
Unseasonably Cloudy
that everyone I've ever met from Washington state (much of my extended
family and their friends) has pronounced "-ing" endings to words as
"een". I seemed to be the only one who noticed (I'm from Long Island,
New York--though thankfully I don't have a Lawngiland accent; perhaps
because my parents are from Washington? :-) ).
....sharon
--
Language is like a cracked kettle on which we beat out tunes for
bears to dance to, while all the time we long to move the stars to pity.
-Gustave Flaubert
// 95...@williams.edu // sharon j. bowman //
Arlyn Newcomb
> In article <CB8q4...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aa...@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Arlyn Newcomb) writes:
> ...
> >
> >Let's not forget "kafuffle" from the Anne of Green Gables books.
> >
> I've never read those books, no doubt if I had the meaning would
> be evident from context.
>
> Is it perhaps related to kaflefle?
That I wouldn't know. Ze kafuffle is akin to ze contretemps and
ze brouhaha. A discomfiting little.....situation. :)
--
A society that gives to one class all the opportunities for
leisure and to another all the burdens of work dooms both classes
to spiritual sterility. --Lewis Mumford
aa...@Virginia.EDU| I do not speak for the Illustrious Institution
Robert Grumbine
>>In article <CB64J...@ucdavis.edu> ez01...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Jim Hartley) writes:
>
>Well, I suppose I now must rise to the defense of the profession.
>
>Not only is economics a science, it is one of the hardest sciences.
>No less an authority than _Science_ magazine (with a name like that
>you know it is good) did a survey a few years back and showed that
>economics was the most mathematical of all the sciences, beating
>out such pretenders to the throne as physics. As we all know, the
>proof of being a science is how much math is used.
I'd be interested in the citation. But the proof of being a science
is how much math is used _correctly_. This tends to do in economics and
the other social sciences. :-) (Donning flame retardent clothing)
Bob Grumbine
rm...@grebyn.com
Jeff Davis
>> >
>> >Let's not forget "kafuffle" from the Anne of Green Gables books.
>> >
>ze brouhaha. A discomfiting little.....situation. :)
ID this:
"Bagatelle? Then I bagatelle out of here."
--
Jeff Davis <da...@keats.ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
Belinda Asbell
>lar...@cfar.umd.edu (Sara Larson) writes:
>
>> There is a law about the conservation of letters in the
>> alphabet. For example, all those "R"s that are dropped
>> by Bostonians are picked up by midwesterners & stuck
>> into words like "Warshington."
>
i thought only Virginians and West Virginians did that...although i do have
a friend from Ohio who used to say 'warsh'.
--
Belinda Asbell + System Admin - Harris Controls, Melbourne, FL
m...@ccd.harris.com + HCD doesn't share my opinions (i hope! :)
Clust doeth a lwnc wybodaeth.* Perpetual Learner * Cwsg yw bywyd heb lyfrau.
Jennifer Robinson
original post, but perhaps those of you who are interested might like
to check out one of my favorite non-fiction books, "Paradigms Lost"
by John L. Casti. He examines both sides of some of the most intriguing
open questions in popular science, such as whether extraterrestrial life
exists, is language innate or learned, and nature vs. nurture. I found it
compelling, and coincidentally, it was the first book I ever bought from
the Quality Paperback Book Club. I've been hooked ever since!
Once I'm settled into my new job, I'm planning to post a list of my
favorite non-fiction books, since non-fiction is so rarely discussed in
this group. For now, I'll just say that #1 is "Virtual Reality" by Howard
Rheingold.
======================================================================
Jennifer A. Robinson | phone: (613) 765-2050
Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. | fax: (613) 763-4101
P.O. Box 3511, Station C | internet: jenn...@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7 | "She's a prisoner of public
The opinions expressed are my own. | television"
======================================================================
Reg Foulkes
Hartley) wrote:
>
> >In article <CB64J...@ucdavis.edu> ez01...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Jim Hartley) writes:
> >>we look?
>
> >Roger replies:
> >
> >Isn't that a bit like saying, "In football, Bohr is *the* nuclear
> >physicist"? 8-)
>
> Well, I suppose I now must rise to the defense of the profession.
> and bravely venture forth].
>
> Not only is economics a science, it is one of the hardest sciences.
> No less an authority than _Science_ magazine (with a name like that
> you know it is good) did a survey a few years back and showed that
> economics was the most mathematical of all the sciences, beating
> out such pretenders to the throne as physics. As we all know, the
> proof of being a science is how much math is used.
>
Jim you've gotabe jokin'. Economics is not a science. It may use
scientific methods, but it does not find immutable laws. Economics
is rightly a humanistic study, where the economist looks for the
most likely action of the "rational man". Of course, the rational
man will sometimes do irrational things. Sometimes he does spend more
when he is suppost to spend less. Look at the Canadian economy, many
economist have claimed that the recession is over, but hell, the millions
of rational men/women don't believe it, nor should they.
ris...@bnr.ca
phone (613) 763-4131
Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
Meg Worley
Agnes Scott College, a local women's college, where Gracious
Living is, I believe, still a required course. The college
insignia is two unicorns with their horns crossed.
And that, my dears, is why I chose Emory.
Rage away,
meg
--
mwo...@mathcs.emory.edu: Oldest Living Emory Junior Tells All
DA...@psuvm.psu.edu
defined state of mind." Thus the former president of St. John's U. in
Minnesota (born and raised in Osakis, MN, so he's authentic). I grew
up in the Chicago area (ok, so the suburbs bland things out) and have lived
some 18 years in Minnesota, and it's simply untrue that "warsh-" is a
general Midewestern pronunciation. I suspect such peculiarities are very
local, and spotty. "Nookelar" does seem pretty widespread, but seems
directly related to the lack of higher education. All the school kids
I taught said "nuclear" (ok, not one kid from North Dakota). I was
taught that the Midwestern "accent" is the flattest, blandest version
of American English going, and thus, fairly standard. Sure, the vowels
are nasal, but almost all American vowels are. Another thing I was
taught was to practice continental vowels by pinching my nostrils while
saying them. The continental a-e-i-o-u shouldn't change in sound, but the
American (whatever flavor) ayee-eeie-ahyee-ohhh-yooo flatten like pancakes.
[These are the long sounds, the short ones are just as bad, but shorter].
I suspect there are some exceptions--non-Southern or -Western o's and u's
seem pretty purely vocalic and non-nasal to me.
So, Midwesterners may talk through their noses, but so does everyone
else in the U.S. (Canada too, eh?). But they don't as a rule say "warsh."
A Western Pennsylvania peculiarity that is both maddening and amusing is
the "need + [past participle]" construction, as in "those dishes need
washed." Does this appear anywhere else?
- - - - - - - - -
Dennis Beach
da...@psuvm.psu.edu
Jan Yarnot
[Stuff about 'warsh"]
The first person I heard say this (and "warter", as in that clear stuff
that isn't cola that you drink, was from Baltimore. Go figure.
>A Western Pennsylvania peculiarity that is both maddening and amusing is
>the "need + [past participle]" construction, as in "those dishes need
>washed." Does this appear anywhere else?
My husband, a native Polish-extract Pittburghian, trained himself out of this
one, which needed done (*grin*). However, he completely loses the "g" in
"length" and "strength". Where does the Law of Conservation of Letters
explain all the dropped "g"s we're gettin' all the time?
I thought I was fairly accentless till I spent 4 years picking up the Queen's
Enlish as she is spoke in the Fens. I then went home to Wyoming and heard
a nasal twang I certainly never noticed before.
The "warter" drinker and I used to disagree on how to pronounce "root": does
it properly rhyme with "foot" or with "boot?" (And then we wonder why kids
have a hard time learning to read.)
ObBook, having nothing to do with this thread, but something to do with the
"nostalgia" thread.... I just finished a 25-cent pocketbook of short novels
which were published just post-war (WWII) in "Woman's Home Companion."
Things seem more innocent, yes.
--
---Jan Yarnot, net.grandma.-- | Mistakes are often the stepping stones
CSUS depends on my every word.| to utter failure.
Jack Campin
> Jack Campin writes:
>> Sorry, Skeat impinges so little on my consciousness I didn't even realize
>> Chambers published him. If so, I assume he's still in print.
> Goodness Gracious! I've caught Campin out...I was refering to Skeat's
> ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY which was published by OUP. Nothing to do with
> Chambers.
Yup, I was thinking of those editions of Middle English texts and had
forgotten about his etymologizing.
> Chaucerian scholar and friend and colleague of Lewis Carroll, I believe.
I just looked up what the Library of Congress lists of his work. Pretty
darn impressive. As well as editions of Middle English, etymological works
and a study of Gothic, we also get this:
Type of Material: Book
LC Call Number: BF1622.M3 S48 1984
Author: Skeat, Walter William, 1866-
Title: Malay magic : being an introduction to the folklore and
popular religion of the Malay Peninsula / by Walter
William Skeat ; with a preface by Charles Otto Blagden ;
and an introduction by Hood Salleh.
Publication Info: Singapore ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1984.
Phys. Description: xxiv, 685 p., [28] leaves of plates : ill. ; 23 cm.
Notes: English and Malay.
--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4192 FAX: 031 451 3431 INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk
JANET: possibly backwards BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet
Katherine M. Catmull
About "Skeat"--it's Skeats actually, I thought it sounded funny when
I wrote it and checked my bookshelves last night.
That's what I get for copying Francis' articles . . .
Freely passing out misinformation,