Craig's Science topics: #1. Evolution of complex features

[agent00f]

Im just explain img how social science defines the terms: I'm happy to hear about other word games with different axioms. However, I would like to know whose axioms they are: your own personal language isn't much use.

"Social science" doesn't define terms, much less dictate them. If you understand the concepts behind word games, you'd be explaining what YOU mean, not trying to force people to talk like you do.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"Social science" doesn't define terms, much less dictate them. If you understand the concepts behind word games, you'd be explaining what YOU mean, not trying to force people to talk like you do.

Not forcing anything, and you have failed to communicate anything (other than that you are distracting from the question re: philosophy of science).

I can't understand your objection... sorry, I'm honestly trying.

 

[agent00f]

Not forcing anything, and have failed to communicate anything (other than that you are distracting from the question re: philosophy of science)

I can't understand your objection... sorry, I'm honestly trying.

The comment you replied to already suggested that the usage of "why" etc can be ambiguous, then you insisted that how means this and why means that.

How and why are abstract classifications, in this case of concepts which are hardly distinct. For example, you believe how must be some "objective" procedural/causal chain of events, but causality itself is pretty anthropomorphic.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The comment you replied to already suggested that the usage of "why" etc can be ambiguous, then you insisted that how means this and why means that.

How and why are abstract classifications, in this case of concepts which are hardly distinct. For example, you believe how must be some "objective" procedural/causal chain of events, but causality itself is pretty anthropomorphic.

Nope. I'm just talking about what I learned in my fancy school'n. Mayhaps it doesn't matter to you; probably shouldn't what with you not needing to talk with other folks with the same school'n.

But where I come from Why answers a theoretical question with valid general knowledge "why did that happen?" How answers a process question "how did it do its thing?" and only a person without interest in the general would think that just because you describe the way you see things in the particular means you understand how things work.

Or perhaps someone trained to think that the particular is either never, or always, a representation of the general case. Physics is like that; environmental science isn't; post modern cultural theory loops back around on the other side.

 

[agent00f]

Nope. I'm just talking about what I learned in my fancy school'n. Mayhaps it doesn't matter to you; probably shouldn't what with you not needing to talk with other folks with the same school'n.

But where I come from Why answers a theoretical question with valid general knowledge "why did that happen?" How answers a process question "how did it do its thing?" and only a person without interest in the general would think that just because you describe the way you see things in the particular means you understand how things work.

Or perhaps someone trained to think that the particular is either never, or always, a representation of the general case. Physics is like that; environmental science isn't; post modern cultural theory loops back around on the other side.

The point of language here is clear communication, not indoctrinating everyone else into whatever academic subset you're used to.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The point of language here is clear communication, not indoctrinating everyone else into whatever academic subset you're used to.

Right: so how does conflating "how and why" help relative to simply accepting the manners of speech common to those who seriously study the question at hand?

 

[agent00f]

Right: so how does conflating "how and why" help relative to simply accepting the manners of speech common to those who seriously study the question at hand?

The person you were originally lecturing clearly understands the difference.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The person you were originally lecturing clearly understands the difference.

Good point!