Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

[drkitten]

A sceptic is a sceptic. A sKeptic is someone who's convinced that the contemporary western metaphysic is essentially correct, and any evidence contradicting this metaphysic must necessarily be in error. They are complete lack wits who understand nothing no matter how carefully one explains things to them. They are enemies of science and of progress. They are liars to boot. Most of the people on here are sKeptics.

It should be noted, Throg, that this use of the word "sKeptic" (silly font changes and all) appears to be idiosyncratic to Ian himself. Similarly, the actual existence of people fitting the description is questionable -- he has been unable to provide any actual evidence (such as quotations from forum participants) that any person, forum participant or not, actually qualifies as a "sKeptic" under his description.

But this is fairly standard debating tactic for Ian. His idiolectical use of words apparently trumps the standard lexicographers -- to the point that he has accused Miriam-Webster of using words incorrectly when they do not match his prejudices.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually Ian I've always thought your grammar and clarity of expression has been very good (several other posters have mentioned this as well). I may not agree with your points, but I can always understand what you are trying to say.

I think most people's grasp and knowledge of English should come not from what they were taught at school, but from a genuine interest in reading and listening to ideas. Many people improve massively after leaving school because they start reading things they want to (as opposed to what they are told to).

And, if you want to actually write a book, website or anything else that will be widely read you have to keep going back repeatedly and polishing the text.
For example it apparently it took Wodehouse months and months to make his dialogue look so effortlessly written.

Come back repeatedly and keep polishing the text??! Hell, you wouldn't believe the number of times I've done that! It's different on here because I don't really care. But I need people to understand what I'm saying for my website. Another thing I've noticed is that if I leave it for a while -- especially a few weeks-- when I come back to it I spot loads of way that I can improve it LOL

Yes my grammar is fine, but not as good as it ought to be. I've got this grammar for dummies book. I just don't have the time to read it

 

[Ashles]

You are also continuting to debate. The obvious difference is that you have said "Don't you think it might be about time to end this exchange" which would seem to imply that you desire an end to the debate. I do not particularly. There can be distinct value in arguing with someone who is irrational.

Really? Like what?
And what are you getting out of this other than a desire to have the last word?
I thought at that point you might wish to cease the debate. However as you have continued to raise 'issues' then I shall continue responding.

When I do desire an end to the debate I will stop debating.

I know you pride yourself on your exactitude of phrase but don't you ever worry about sounding just a tad pompous?

Incidentally, I should make it clear that I have no reason to suppose that you are always or even predominantly irrational. It is merely the case that the contents of your posts in this thread have been largely irrational.

Would this be the 'just when someone disagress with you' scenario mentioned by you earlier?
And again I don't think you are using words very accurately. I don't really see how any of my posts here could be reasonably described as 'irrational'. You claimed there was possibility for misinterpretation of my posts. Whether that it true or not, how did you go from there to 'irrational'?

Not at all. Using language effectively and persuasively is quite different from using it well.

So you can use language badly, yet still use it effectively and persuasively? You are painting yourself into a bit of a corner there.

Advertisers use language effectively and persuasively (good adverts are a fine example of rhetoric, by the way) but often incorrectly in terms of semantics, grammar and factual content.

An effective advert is almost always using language well wouldn't you say? Anyway managing to produce an example of a grammatically poor yet still effective advert (do you have one?) hardly equates to "Using language effectively and persuasively is quite different from using it well".
And the factual content is, of course, entirely irrelevent to the quality of the language.

Of course, as you are probably aware (I presume you didn't just pick your definition from an online dictionary) the term rhetoric refers to the use of persuasive language without regard to the actual content of that language (i.e. whether it is reasonable or true.)

So have you now moved away from criticising my actual English skills and are concentrating solely on the content?
And what do you have aginst online dictionaries? Are they less accurate than your definitions?

If you are happy to identify yourself as one who uses language as a tool of persuasion regardless of the validity of the position you espouse then I suppose you are welcome.

Well I would take the two issues seperately. If you are now claiming that my posts are filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, but the language itself is fine then we can start again from there.
Which 'invalid' position do I hold?

 

[Ashles]

Another thing I've noticed is that if I leave it for a while -- especially a few weeks-- when I come back to it I spot loads of way that I can improve it LOL

I hate that. I can actually often remember when I was last working on something and thinking "Yes that seems fine" only to come back a couple of months later and think "What on earth was I thinking?"

 

[Throg]

It should be noted, Throg, that this use of the word "sKeptic" (silly font changes and all) appears to be idiosyncratic to Ian himself.

I didn't actually consider the possibility that it was a term with any independent validity since I know of no resource that uses typefaces in that particular way when providing definitions. As long as I understand how Ian is using the term, I think I can manage. Thanks, though.

Similarly, the actual existence of people fitting the description is questionable -- he has been unable to provide any actual evidence (such as quotations from forum participants) that any person, forum participant or not, actually qualifies as a "sKeptic" under his description

I have personally met people who more or less fit the description, in that they credulous to the claims of apparent scientific authority figures. The times I have most often come across such people is after there has been an overly-simplistic science program on T.V. They believe claims they hear in virtue of the fact that it was said by a scientist rather than in virtue of the logical and evidenciary basis of the claims. The only concrete example I can think of off the top of my head is that a number of people I knew who considered themselves free from irrational beliefs who immediately accepted that cold fusion had been achieved because they saw a pair of scientists on T.V. say that it had been achieved. There was no way to convince these people that it was unlikely to be true.

I don't take it that, rhetoric aside, Ian is essentially saying any more than that some people claim to be sceptical when in fact they have made a faith out of science.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I hate that. I can actually often remember when I was last working on something and thinking "Yes that seems fine" only to come back a couple of months later and think "What on earth was I thinking?"

Not what I'm actually saying, but rather conveying it correctly. Anyway, I'll put it up (the first 4,000 words) in the R & P forum in a couple of days. There's just a few things I need to alter and expand upon first . . . .

 

[Ashles]

Not what I'm actually saying, but rather conveying it correctly. Anyway, I'll put it up (the first 4,000 words) in the R & P forum in a couple of days. There's just a few things I need to alter and expand upon first . . . .

Can't you put it straight on the website?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Anyway, I'll put it up (the first 4,000 words) in the R & P forum in a couple of days. There's just a few things I need to alter and expand upon first . . . .

Does this mean that we're finally going to find out what "materialism" is?

Ooh, goody!

* rubs hands *

 

[Interesting Ian]

Can't you put it straight on the website?

Well, that involves more work. I was thinking of doing that when I've completed it. Another 8000 words approx yet (I've done loads of the 8000 words but not as a coherent whole, if you know what I mean).

 

[Ashles]

Well, that involves more work. I was thinking of doing that when I've completed it. Another 8000 words approx yet (I've done loads of the 8000 words but not as a coherent whole, if you know what I mean).

So you've got all the right words, just not necessarily in the right order?

© Morecambe and Wise, 1977

 

[Interesting Ian]

Not what I'm actually saying, but rather conveying it correctly. Anyway, I'll put it up (the first 4,000 words) in the R & P forum in a couple of days. There's just a few things I need to alter and expand upon first . . . .

Come on then! Everyone's ignoring it! Well . .apart from Darat who made a couple of comments on the first 2 sentences of my 4500 words

Go here.