Blog powered by Typepad

« An extraordinary rendition? | Main | Hail Science »


Hi Michael I just recently joined a group on facebook it's on survival after death and Victor Zammit is the manager of the group there is a girl who created the group she said she sat in on a seance with David Thompson It's a open group too so you should be able to see the topics going on. Her name is Caroline she discusses that she was a eyewitness to one of David Thompson's seances it's under the topic called proving/disproving

You make a valid point about language, and how a living, usuable one is slowly adapting and changing. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary would be able to provide a lengthy list of words whose "proper" first definitions have changed over time, not to mention how new words are constantly entering the lexicon.And I agree with you that the word "skeptic" HAS evolved in meaning to denote a close-minded debunkers. Etymology and philology actually are interesting and worthwhile studies to have at least a passing acquaintance with when dealing with some of the subjects covered in this blog, if only because we are using language, with all of its words defined by using OTHER words, to attempt understanding and communicating vague and difficult concepts by employing vague and difficult concepts. A good analogy would be likening the use of language to building a sandcastle: sands are known to shift for a multitude of reasons, and word meanings shift from their "definite" positions as well, assuming they can be said to even HAVE definite positions (can we extend Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to words and their usage?). A sandcastle LOOKS like a solid edifice, but I wouldn't try to live in one. Bertrand Russell once noted, "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize until you have tried to make it precise". About that, neither he nor I could be called a "skeptic".

Since nobody had expressed this sentiment so far. Bravo! (clap clap clap). Great little poem.

Whilst I agree that usage and meaning change over time. I think we should try and be precise with our use of language, and at the same time be aware of its vagaries. I often noticed that your (Michael's) use in language reflects everyday usage, but this can be confusing in some of your written articles. For example, the piece Why I am not a Skeptic ; a full essay could be written just on the title. Anyhow you have made your views on the matter clear, so it's all good (as the trendy young folks say).

The comments to this entry are closed.