Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA22729 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:16:44 GMT Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FBC5@fillan.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <email@example.com> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:10:37 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
<I don't think it does anyone any good to complain about writers not
> scientific terms with the same rigor they are used in scientific
> publications. You have to fit the words to the purpose and the audience
> are writing for.>
As longer term list member will know, as a bit of a definitional
pedant, I couldn't really agree here. As Sokel & Bricmont have shown, when
people start using terms they don't understand and try and lever them into
their own theories, the only reason they're doing it is to try and fool the
reader that they are clever. It is a dreadful and unethical conceit, (and
doesn't stand up to scrutiny).
Personally, as someone coming from a humanities/social science
position, the extent to which my own fields are minefields of jargon means
I'm quite fed up with people trying to claw in jargon from the natural
sciences in order to try and make what they're talking about somehow more
credible (whilst often trying to pretend that natural sciences are rubbish
at the same time).
Some terms are cross-disciplinary - culture would be a good example
that is up for definitional discussion- but others, like quantum, are not,
and people should IMHO stop buggering about with them.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 19 2002 - 11:27:23 GMT