From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Oct 15 2001 - 15:58:12 MDT
> Please advise, what is the (a) correct casual expression to illustrate the
> idea of using words of art and context diversion to obfuscate the validity
> of a statement?
I think the term "empty rhetoric" is a more general term, but the specific
case of arguing definitions instead of substance is called "semantic
dispute", just as you point out. I'm just pointing out that most of the
time I hear the accusation of semantic argument, it's accurate--the
post to which I replied stated that the _accusation_ of semantic nonsense
was itself was a rhetorical tactic. Which is it? Are semantic disputes
empty rhetoric or are they not, and is pointing them out a valid technique
of argument or not?
>
> Robert Coyote
> Grand conduit of extropy to the trailer parks and bowling alleys of A
> 'Merika
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <lee@piclab.com>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Just semantics (was: Re: Aging isn't a disease)
>
>
> > > >but its all semantics
> > >
> > > This is one of those cant phrases that genuinely infuriate me, and
> should
> > > upset anyone with an educated brain in their head.
> > >
> > > *Semantics* is the discipline centrally concerned with *the meaning of
> > > statements*, with *how communication works effectively to convey or mask
> > > meanings*.
> > >
> > > So `Pah, it's just semantics,' with its implied rider `Please ditch
> *that*
> > > pettifogging triviality', is equivalent to saying, `That's just trying
> to
> > > agree on what we're talking about, and the ways we'll do it--let's
> ignore
> > > such dismal irrelevancies and instead just babble about whatever comes
> into
> > > our heads.'
> >
> > Most of the time I see the phrase used it's entirely appropriate--it
> > points out that someone is wasting a lot of time and energy on definitions
> > rather than arguments of substance, the way this list periodically gets
> > all worked up about the transporter-copy issue, where there isn't a single
> > interesting question of fact invovled. Sure, one must have some
> > definitions to begin an argument of substance, but many people continue
> > to _argue_ the definitions as if they were facts of substance
> > themselves. Knowing the difference should be a basic skill of
> > rational thought learned in elementary school, but people still continue
> > to debate definitions as if they were facts, and get truly worked up
> > about such nonsense. If they are dismissed curty, it's because they
> > deserve to be.
> >
> > --
> > Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
> > "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
> > are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
> > for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
> >
> >
>
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:23 MST