|
|
|
|
Sparked by something Silfer quoted in a previous thread - "The mode of the religious is faith; the mode of the mystic is expirience "
My background is scientific, including a scientific study of human evolution and cultures (ie anthropology) at Uni. This has specifically included the study of theories of religion in a social context. But I have had, throughout my life life, certain experiences which could broadly be called mystical. the earliest I remember was aged five, the most recent aged around 45. Probably less than a dozen such experiences all told.
So I find myself in rather the position of someone who has seen a Yeti (Bigfoot, whatever)a few times at the bottom of the garden. While I can intellectually concede that I may have been mistakened, and that there may be other explanations, I don't actually believe this to be the case. My (occasional) sporadic attendance at Christian churches is a bit like leaving food out for the Yeti - I don't know what it eats, but some books say such-and-such, and it feels right to me .... but actually I have no ideas what Yetis eat, what makes a Yeti happy or unhappy ...
And if it's been several years since I last "saw a Yeti" the memory of the experience dims, and I rely on a faith in my memory of a memory of the experience when I assert the reality of the Yeti ... for me, that's what faith is.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quote is from here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/dancing.html
I found that an interesting read - and the topic itself interests me. I have yet to see a yeti, to use your words (or maybe I am simply overlooking it). Nevertheless, one of the thoughts I left that paper with was this: In christianity as it is now, for the most part - or rather, the kind we got here, you can substitute "God exists" for "God existed" without anything breaking. God was, made rules, did miracles, vanished, left us a book. (Short & simple version) Nothing in the religion breaks. That is IMHO a problem.
NW: Another lovely quote from the above, pertaining to scientific background (which I also share, being a student of informatics): "Fine. You have explained it. Correctly, even. But you can't do it!"
ESR calls upon Jung and his theories of psychology to explain. I don't know those well, but there are holes in them too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was little I was sure that magic was real: that if you wrote a letter to Father Christmas, he would magically come down the chimney and leave presents; if you lost a tooth, it would magically turn into a 20p piece if you slept on it; if you wished hard enough, you could make things happen just by thinking.
Then there was religion: a collection of bloody stories in the Bible; a God who supposedly listened, but never talked back; a God who would not or could not influence any of the events around me; a God in whose name horrible deeds were carried out, and yet the BBC could not ring him up for an interview to see what he thought about it.
I find it ironic that it was those things that categorically could not have been real -- the cheap conjuring tricks that fool a child -- were more "real" to me than the adult deity who, so we are told, exists all around us. I can categorically say I never "heard from God". Maybe if I had, I would have been sucked in by the "God bug" for life. I would like to think not, however; I have in my possession a highly logical and pedantic brain, and while it frequently causes me no end of irritation, it and I now have a useful symbiotic relationship.
For a while, when I was five or six, I was convinced I had made a packet of Smarties appear on my chest of drawers simply by wishing for it. In retrospect I imagine that someone put them there when I was not looking; though where they came from is still a mystery (I was rarely allowed sweets). When I rationalised the incident a few years later, I was forced to concede that it the probability was not very high that, through some sort of intervention of my own, the molecules making up the Smarties spontaneously teleported from the nearest shop onto my chest of drawers, so I must have been mistaken. Yet if the subject had not been quite so improbable (it had been a Bible, or a book, or even a particular arrangement of dust), I might have mistaken it for some sort of message from God (even if it was after all through another party: God works through other people, right?). It might have made it rather harder to separate self-deception from fact; but luckily that didn't happen.
Once I had taken this first step, it was not much of a step to extend that thought to the rest of the mystical thoughts that I was presented with, especially considering that they were much less "real" to me. Couple that with the fact that I was learning science at school -- not very complicated science, it must be said, but it had answers to most things that might otherwise have been under the remit of religion -- it essentially meant I lost any sense of mysticism, or faith or whatever you want to call it; and I've never regained it. (Except when consuming books and films: I wonder if that explains why I was such a prolific reader of fiction books at the time, and am so keen on books and films and plays and so on these days -- they indulge my sense of the mystic as part of the suspension of belief, without requiring that I extend it to real life.)
I realised quite early on that most of religion was a social structure designed to instruct its followers in their behaviour, not to guarantee them eternal salvation. It was for this reason that I stayed outwardly a Christian for so long (until I was about 14): I reasoned that whether or not God existed, the Church of England's moral position was fundamentally sound, and I could do worse than to assume that God did exist, or at least behave outwardly that way. Nowadays, I am not too happy about my reasoning; but when I was younger, I was more conservative than I am now.
I've no idea if any of that made sense. Maybe if it doesn't I'll come back and revise it tomorrow -- but right now I'm dozing off on top of the keyboard.
Night night, everyone.
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
At one stage in my life I developed an interest in Rosicrucianism and the Cabbalah. I think it broadened my experience, even though I didn't adhere to the principles it espouses. I suppose that the main principle I have learned from experience is tolerance; I now accept that I don't have all the answers and in all probability I never will have them. As an example, as a teenager I avidly read the ghost stories of M. R. James. In my twenties I dismissed ghosts as an invention of the gullible. As I have grown older, I have learned the folly of dismissing anything simply because it goes beyond my understanding. And I still enjoy the ghost stories of M. R. James! (For devotees, my favourite has always been 'Oh whistle and I'll come to you, my lad!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
>In my twenties I dismissed ghosts as an invention of the gullible. As I have grown older, I have learned the folly of dismissing anything simply because it goes beyond my understanding.
I don't dismiss the possibility of something simply because it goes beyond my understanding. But I do reserve the right not to believe in it if I see no evidence for it. Imagination, suggestion and self-deception are, after all, extraordinarily powerful things. I know you are highly intelligent and greatly respect your opinions: what could possibly have convinced you to change your mind on the subject?
>For devotees, my favourite has always been 'Oh whistle and I'll come to you, my lad!
Oh, jolly good! That's my favourite one also. Though I must read them again to see if my mind has changed: sometimes different stories appeal to me at different times. That one appealed to me because I thought it was an intriguing, simple, self-contained and cinematic story; and I was simultaneously disappointed and pleased to discover that it had already been made into a film, as part of a seris of BBC adaptations in the late 60s/early 70s. They are well worth a look if you can ever catch them on a channel like BBC 4. Unlike in modern television films, the pace is slow and impeccably measured.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... than are dreamed of in our philosophy!
Deeej ...
Not so long after I moved to North East England, I became friendly with a Church of England clergyman whom I met in a local pub. We had long and interesting philosophical conversations - in some respects he was almost as firmly agnostic as I was, though he had a Doctorate in Theology and was a formidable biblical scholar. As our friendship deepened, I was invited to his house for dinner on the first Monday of each month, where he gathered about half-a-dozen friends (one of whom was a young assistant priest from the local Roman Catholic parish!) to spend the evening drinking and talking about anything and everything. On one occasion the conversation turned to ghosts and poltergeists. My friend said that all his instincts urged him to dismiss such ideas entirely, but he found himself unable to do so. He had once been vicar of a parish in Northumberland in which there was a reputedly haunted farm. The building was very old, having originally been a pele tower - a form of late medieval fortified manor house peculiar to the Anglo-Scottish border counties. There was no visible manifestation, but on occasion the temperature on the upper floor would drop and anyone present would have a sense of what he called 'unpleasantness'. Several people had recounted such experiences, but he dismissed this as auto suggestion. However, on one occasion, when visiting the family, he felt the sensation himself. I remember his words - "It scared the shit out of me". Since then, he was never able to reject the supernatural out of hand. He said he was never sure which was most embarassing - admitting that as a sceptic he had been genuinely frightened or admitting that he might have been a victim of auto suggestion. There was no known record of any dark or dastardly deed committed on the premises. He didn't believe in ghosts, but he couldn't quite disbelieve, either.
I knew him well enough to accept unreservedly that he was telling the truth as he knew it, and that he genuinely didn't understand what had happened. I reasoned that if a man of such learning and experience could be unsure, it would be presumptive of me to be glibly dismissive. And so I remain; I have had no supernatural experiences myself, and I do not accept the vast majority of the accounts I have heard from others - but I stop short of rejecting the possibility out of hand simply because it is beyond my own experience or comprehension.
Turning to M. R. James, I think I've seen all of the dramatisations at one time or another and, as you say, they are excellent! I believe that they were originally shown as a series of 'Ghost Stories for Christmas' on BBC2; a tradition I would love to see revived.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have with ghosts is that there is no evidence for their existence. Not a shred. There is nothing that cannot be explained by a mistake, or self-delusion, or suggestion, or deliberate deception. No repeatable, verifiable, scientific results. Cold patches in a room can be explained by unusual or unexpected drafts. Odd photographs can be explained by double exposures, unintended light getting in, technical faults, and so on. Yes, they could be ghosts -- but I am very much of the opinion that, unless I can see something with my own eyes*, or it can be detected or measured using proper scientific equipment, or there is otherwise good evidence for its existence -- it doesn't exist. Note that I am not dismissing the possibility out of hand. Bring me some good evidence and I'll believe you.
I'm sure you're aware of the levels of deception in the clairvoyant and psychic industries, so I assume I don't have to point that out to you. There is nothing that they can do that cannot be achieved by a trained magician. Have you ever visited randi.org? It's an interesting site, run by an American magician and sceptic, who is offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove the existence of any sort of psychic phenomenon (including God, but let's not go there). The offer has been around for several years, but no-one has even got close to claiming it.
Incidentally, I lived for five years in a building supposedly haunted by Bishop Thomas Ken, along with (cumulatively) a hundred and thirty others -- and not one of those people, living on site 24 hours a day, ever saw anything. The only person who ever apparently saw him was the housekeeper in the Warden's lodging (who was only there during the day), and she only knew he was there by a strong smell of fish. I'm not sure that that cannot be discounted as smells wafting across from the College kitchens. Of course it is more romantic to think of the Bishop looking out for us (apparently he was quite a benign soul).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ken
Oh, I nearly forgot: she once convinced one of the College chaplains to try and do an exorcism in one of the rooms she was convinced was haunted. He went in there and sat for a while. Then he came out again. He saw nothing, I am pleased to report.
David
*by which I mean, is also visible to other people and cannot be discounted, for whatever reason, as my imagination. I don't trust my own brain, not after what happened when I was 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I lived in a house on Cape Cod that was haunted......
On the week I moved in I swear I saw a person standing at the kitchen sink.
I was alone in the house......
Late one night I had to go pee and so I did.... On my way back to my bed I was physicaly pushed and tumbled in a heap on the floor.....
I moved out the next week...... Quickly.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I would love to spend a night somewhere like that.
I would like to be able to believe that the supernatural does genuinely exist, even though I don't now, and almost certainly never will, believe in it. That's why I like ghost stories: they are the only place left now I can indulge my childhood fears.
I would be fascinated to see to what happened, though: even if I didn't do it as a scientific experiment, I would be fascinated to find out:
i. if I am actually wrong (the really, really outside possibility)
ii. if I can be convinced at the time, yet come up with a rational explanation afterwards
iii. if I can be convinced for a moment -- then find out what it is that is frightening me (the most interesting option, as it would allow me to investigate my capacity for suggestion)
iv. if nothing happens -- the really boring option, but it would still let me test how imaginative I am
Regardless of what happened, it would be interesting.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
No Message Body
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I don't think that there is any basis for scientific argument here. I accept that, in the nature of things, paranormal phenomena can always be explained away by 'rational' interpretations. All I can say is that a man for whose intellect and experience I had the utmost respect was unsure - and that, to me, is sufficient justification for keeping an open mind.
As regards Thomas Ken, his name (and that of the composer Thomas Tallis) always provokes a feeling of nostalgia. I was once very active in the Scout Movement (a Commissioner, no less, don'cha know?) but going back to my days as Scout Leader of the Troop at my former school, one of my happiest memories is of my Scouts singing 'Tallis' Canon' as a four-part round:
Glory to Thee, my God this night,
For all the blessings of the Light.
Keep me, O keep me, King of Kings
Beneath Thine own Almighty wings.
Almost enough to make an agnostic a believer!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a show on the Travel Channel, somethng to do with hanunted places in England. There is this guy who is supposed to be a phycic or somehting(probably more or a something). Excuse me, but this is the lambest show I have ever seen. Everything he says when he is supposed to be contacting the dead is so general. Like saying someone was murdered here, durn, someone was probably murdered everywhere at one point in time or other. This guy is so obvious a fraud, it actually makes the show worth watching so you can get a good laugh. How can people in their right mind believe this stuff. The only thing more lame than this show, Is the american one called TAPS, It just plain insults my intelligents.
If Soloman was the wisest man in the world, and was given widom by God. This is what he said about death. "The dead know nothing, neither do they toil nor weave, nor do the dead praise God" Your dead, your dead, period. You aint gonna come back and haunt your mother in law.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... for two or three days (Your post of 24 March, first paragraph, refers). Looking back on my life and attitudes, I think that my core views on life - not just ghosts! - have shifted subtly over the years without any conscious intellectual input on my part.
I hope that you - and Brian - will not feel that I am being patronising in any way; that is very definitely not my intention. Simply as a question of fact I can well remember that in Uni days I saw things pretty well in black and white. I read mathematics, and in consequence I was logical to the point of pain, unless tranquilised by large quantities of alcohol. So I had no time for ghosts or the paranormal; if there was no 'scientific' evidence to support an argument it was beneath my dignity to discuss it.
Provoked by your comments, I've been exploring my present attitudes at the age of umpty-um. They have certainly changed. In my lifetime, a substantial amount of science fiction has become science fact. Readers of my posts will know that I'm a bit of a knowledge freak, squirreling away unconsidered trifles in the recesses of my brain. I think that, cumulatively, the more I have discovered, the more I realise that I don't know. To quote John Sebastian, leader of one of my all-time favourite groups 'Lovin' Spoonful': 'The more I see, the more I see there is to see'.
Timmy made reference a week or two ago to a peculiarity of the Scottish legal system - the 'Not Proven' verdict. Most judicial systems require a verdict of innocent if guilt has not been proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 'Not Proven' means, in effect, that the circumstantial evidence may point to guilt, but it fails the requirement to go beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not punished, because guilt has not been proved, but neither is he declared innocent - it is, in fact, a verdict of 'don't know'. I think it may possibly be a peculiarly Scottish trait but, having duly contemplated my navel, I have come to the conclusion that I have gradually come to apply the 'Not Proven' philosophy to life at large.
So, using ghosts as an example, I still take the intellectual view that there is no evidence whatsoever to justify a belief that such phenomena can exist, but I no longer take the final step of concluding that in the absence of such evidence they do NOT exist. I guess that the issue is filed in the 'Not Proven' section of my mental archive. It no longer seems necessary to actively disbelieve. Maybe, Deeej, this is why I'm agnostic and you are atheist?
Does all this rambling make sense to anyone?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
Your rambling makes plenty of sense to me. I have no problem with people who look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion from me, provided that both of us are looking at it from a critical, unbiased point of view, and not simply seeing what we want to see.
(I do have a problem with people making pronouncements on things that they have no idea about, but are not willing to admit they do not understand. It is depressing that in today's reality-television, pop-culture, celebrity-first world, uninformed and spurious opinions on a subject are given nearly as much credence as those of people who have devoted their lives to researching the topic in a methodical and scientific manner.)
It seems to me -- and no doubt you are aware of it also -- that a lot of people, as they get older, open their minds to the possibility of other things (even where there is no evidence for them), presumably as a kind of insurance against death. I suppose it provides a measure of comfort. (To be honest, I would rather choose oblivion!) I don't mind that way of thinking, provided that it doesn't affect a person's powers of critical thinking and evaluation (and behaviour towards others). I dare say that I will feel that urge as I get older, too.
Best wishes,
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Deeej
I'm not sure that we are quite on the same wavelength here. I'm certainly not looking for comfort as death comes closer!
My point is simply that on a given issue I accept the available evidence (or lack of it) and arrive at the rational conclusion that - for example - there is absolutely no scientific support for the existence of ghosts. Presumably up to this point we are in perfect accord. When I was at Uni I would have gone further, and would have argued that ghosts simply do not exist; nowadays, if someone asserted in conversation that he believed in ghosts, I would take the line that in view of the lack of scientific evidence I was unable to accept his view, and would remain unable to accept it until and unless acceptable evidence emerged. That's subtly different from dismissing his view as untenable.
You may have been misled by the vagueness of my earlier postings on this thread; I mentioned the experience of a clergyman for whose academic abilities I had the highest regard. I don't take that experience as evidence of the existence of ghosts - nor did he - but he found his experience unnerving and he could not accept the validity of the 'rational' explanation of an unusual draught. He simply didn't know what happened.
I don't feel that I am taking a less rigorous scientific approach as I get older; I am, perhaps, simply accepting that our current state of knowledge does not make us omniscient!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>nowadays, if someone asserted in conversation that he believed in ghosts, I would take the line that in view of the lack of scientific evidence I was unable to accept his view, and would remain unable to accept it until and unless acceptable evidence emerged. That's subtly different from dismissing his view as untenable.
In that case, we are in fact in perfect accord! That is the essence of scientific method. Not to dismiss anything outright, but only to accept it in the light of good evidence. I would in fact condemn your young self for concluding that ghosts do not exist. Lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against something.
However, I do choose to "believe" (to use a word that is a bit vague for my liking, but it'll do for the moment) that ghosts do not exist, as that belief is justified through science (for it is not useful as a scientist to believe anything to be the case unless there is good, falsifiable evidence for it).
I wonder if your "agnostic" is not quite similar to my "atheistic"? I am an atheist: I do not deny the possibility that there is no God, but I think it so unlikely as not to be useful to accept the possibility. Even so, if I see good scientific evidence for a God, then I will (no question about it: I will) change my opinion. There is a common misconception that atheists say "There is no God. Full stop.", but that is in fact a rather dogmatic form of atheism ("strong atheism") that is not really compatible with good science. Likewise there is a common misconception that agnostic means that the person thinks that there is "something", but in fact in popular usage it can cover a spectrum from "I think there is definitely something, but I know not what" all the way to "I accept the possibility that something could exist, but I don't think it is at all likely", which is very similar to my own, atheistic, position.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Good falsifiable evidence? Tsk, Tsk, that's not very pedantic!
OK, I agree that we're not far apart! On the agnostic issue, I've muttered on elsewhere about the 'Big Bang' and what preceded it; I don't think science has yet found acceptable answers, and I don't find the idea of a supreme intelligence as inherently unlikely as some of the alternative theories. So I don't know, but I see no reason to specifically disbelieve.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Yikes, an oxymoron! Good falsifiable evidence? Tsk, Tsk, that's not very pedantic!
Believe it or not, you have made THREE errors in those words alone!
1. Do you know what falsifiable means? It simply means testable, confirmable. From dictionary.com:
falsifiable, adj : capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable, verifiable]
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable
Hence "good falsifiable evidence" could not be an oxymoron. Therefore:
2. I was not not being very pedantic.
3. An oxymoron is traditionally, at least (though I know when people twist the language around too much, they eventually change the rule) used only to describe words that are used together for effect; hence, a contradiction in terms by mistake is not an oxymoron.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
I don't mind being corrected (in fact, I welcome it), but heaven help you if you try and correct a pedant wrong!
David
P.S. Note the number of exclamation marks in this post to indicate the depth of my feeling!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case it wasn't apparent in the parent post, Cossie, I'm not annoyed -- just a bit indignant!
If you would like to try and wriggle out of an apology, however, you will have to contact my solicitors. Which may be difficult, as I don't have any.
Best wishes,
Deeej 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
(1) Falsifiable is a philosophical term not yet assimilated into ordinary English, and thus inappropriate for a discussion forum such as this.
(2) The definition you quote is highly suspect; in philosophic terms it certainly isn't an exact synonym for 'verifiable', even if the two words are sometimes interchangeable.
(3) So far as I am aware, the term is used in philosophy to qualify either a statement or a theory, not to describe 'evidence'.
(4) The Concise Oxford Dictionary (the guiding light on English usage for ordinary mortals) does not (yet) give the technical meaning discussed above; the only meaning given to 'falsifiable' is 'capable of being falsified'.
(5) The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'oxymoron' as 'a figure of speech with pointed conjunction of seemingly contradictory expressions'. By this definition, 'good, falsifiable evidence' - giving 'falsifiable' its ordinary English meaning - is an oxymoron.
(6) I agree you were not being very pedantic (unusually!) and that is what I said.
(7) In situations such as this I prefer to use contract hit-men rather than solicitors. They will be visiting you shortly.
( My internet identity is Cossie. Please avoid conjoining me with the name of an American newspaper editor!!!!!!!!!!!! (And that damn' smiley comes up every time you follow '8' by a closing bracket!)
(Btw, I am pretty difficult to offend, but I do tend to fight back!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
I will look the matter up in a "proper" dictionary (not the Oxford Concise English Dictionary -- it ommits definitions that are equally valid, but lesser known, for reasons of space) and settle it tomorrow. I agree that falsifiable is usually used to describe a theory, but I saw no reason it could not extend to evidence. And there is no stipulation that we cannot use technical English on this site; in fact, I would expect you to expect that of me.
I absolutely stand firm on "oxymoron". An oxymoron is a dramatic device used for emphasis, not a synonym for "contradition in terms within two words". And I will prove it when I look in the dictionary tomorrow. I fear that if you look it up in any pedantic reference manual, you will discover the same thing. In fact, even Google, which panders to the most common of tastes, is helpful in proving my point: all those definitions which go into any depth at all make it clear that it doesn't apply to just any contradiction, despite the popular view.
Okay, I've been bitten by the annoying smiley thing too, so I can't give you a direct link without that link being soiled by little faces; but go to Google and type in "define:oxymoron" and it'll give you a list of possible definitions -- some easily authoritative enough to convince you, I would hope.
>I agree you were not being very pedantic (unusually!) and that is what I said
Ha ha! Got you there, Gordon. I mean Cossie. I said,
>I was not not being very pedantic.
Note the double negative, as I was partially quoting your words ("that's not very pedantic"). Hence your reply,
>I agree you were not being very pedantic (unusually!) and that is what I said
makes no sense.
Night night!
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I await tomorrow with trepidation (unless my heavies get to you before you post again!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By "ommits", I obviously meant "omits". Silly me. Please feel free to patronise me for that particular mistake, Cossie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) (proper, large version from the RHUL library):
oxymoron. Rhet. [a. Gr. omicron-xi-upsilon-mu-omega-rho-omicron-nu, sb. use of neuter of omicron-xi-upsilon-mu-omega-rho-omicron-sigma pointedly foolish, f. omicron-xi-upsilon- sharp + mu-omega-rho-omicron-sigma dull, stupid, foolish.] A rhetorical figure by which contradictory or incongruous terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement of expression; an expression, in its superficial or literal meaning self-contradictory or absurd, but involving a point. (Now often loosely or erroneously used as if merely = a contradiction in terms, an incongruous conjunction.)
Sorry about all those longhand Greek letters -- I wasn't sure I could use real Greek letters on this messageboard.
However, the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary puts your definition in brackets as "loose" or "erroneous" means that it is not accepted as an "official" definition, and I am right. An accidental contradiction is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989):
Falsifiable, a. [f. FALSIFY v. + -ABLE. Cf. F. falsifiable.] That may be falsified.
1611 COTGR., Falsifiable, which may be falsified, unadulterated, forged, sophisticated.
1685 COTTON tr. Montaigne II. 412 The sense are the sovereign Lords of his knowledge, but they are uncertain and falsifiable in all circumstances.
1862. F. HALL Hindu Philos. Syst. 252 The Vedantins believe the world to be falsifiable.
1959 Cambr. Rev. 30 May 568/2 Suppose now that a statement was meaningful if and only if it was falsifiable.
1964 W.P. AlSTON Philos. Lang. iv. 70. We should also note the specially wide sense in which the positivists use 'verifitability'. In this use, it is really equivalent to the disjunction 'verifiable or falsifiable', that is, 'capable of being established as true or false'. [My emphasis.]
Okay, I concede this point, Cossie, and I will eat humble pie. Obviously, if evidence is capable of being established as false then it is hardly good evidence. I got theories and evidence mixed up: a theory can be falsifiable, even if evidence never emerges (or indeed, no evidence exists) that falsifies it. Rather counter-intuitive.
I take back my first two criticisms, and I apologise. I do not take back the one about the meaning of oxymoron, as I believe that I am firmly supported by the OED on that one.
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quick way round it is to leave a space between the two characters like this:
8 )
However, if you are a perfectionist you can use a bit of HTML. Type:
8)
and make sure that the HTML box is ticked. This will display as:
8) instead of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I hope and believe that I have never commented about a spelling or keying error except when the result was humorous. No-one is immune, especially when typing rather than writing by hand!
As regards falsifiable, interestingly enough I arrived at my conclusion by a different route. There is a general principle of law and language providing that where a word or phrase has a technical meaning which differs from its ordinary meaning in everyday conversation, then if that word or phrase appears in a context in which the sense is ambiguous, it should be construed according to its ordinary meaning. Thus 'falsifiable' used to qualify 'evidence' must always be construed in its ordinary sense because that sense is often used in relation to 'evidence' and there must therefore be an inherent element of ambiguity. In truth, the problem stems from the use of the word in the original treatise; the concept was an innovation and it would have been better to use a less potentially-ambiguous word such as 'disprovable', or indeed to coin an entirely original term.
Incidentally, having had a lifetime's experience of eating humble pie, I find that is delicious served with pease pudding and a rich onion gravy!
Turning to 'oxymoron', I have to admit impure usage and acknowledge that your status as pedant-supreme is reaffirmed. However, I note from the quoted definition that 'loose' and 'erroneous' are alternatives; I hereby formally elect to be considered loose - the term fits me much more comfortably than erroneous!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>As regards falsifiable, interestingly enough I arrived at my conclusion by a different route. There is a general principle of law and language providing that where a word or phrase has a technical meaning which differs from its ordinary meaning in everyday conversation, then if that word or phrase appears in a context in which the sense is ambiguous, it should be construed according to its ordinary meaning.
That is a fair assessment. There is, obviously, a fair chance of ambiguity if the same word is used in an unfair manner, where there is a fairly high chance for confusion. I shall raise the subject at the next pedants' fair. Provided the weather is fair, of course. And I am not inclemently waylaid by a member of the fair sex, nor forget to pay the correct fare.
Deeej
P.S. What were we talking about, again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
That's hardly a fair question for someone of my venerable antiquity!
It may have had something to do with shoes and ships and sealing-wax and cabbages and kings. Or were we discussing why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings?
Aaaargh! Pass the whisky!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxes! Morons! who cares?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
