Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,987 Year: 19,023/19,786 Month: 1,443/1,705 Week: 249/446 Day: 47/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 661 of 1725 (595156)
12-06-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 660 by xongsmith
12-03-2010 11:52 PM


who what where when why and how
Hi xongsmith,

I wasn't confused. But, yes. Nice summation.

... but which only perpetuates the confused conflation of how with why, rather than the distinction.

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/why
why
-adverb
1.
for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
-conjunction
2.
for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving.
3.
for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go.
4.
the reason for which: That is why he returned.
-noun
5.
a question concerning the cause or reason for which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending hows and whys.
6.
the cause or reason: the whys and wherefores of a troublesome situation.
-interjection
7.
(used as an expression of surprise, hesitation, etc., or sometimes a mere expletive): Why, it's all gone!

vs

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/how
how
-adverb
1.
in what way or manner; by what means?: How did the accident happen?
2.
to what extent, degree, etc.?: How damaged is the car?
3.
in what state or condition?: How are you?
4.
for what reason; why?: How can you talk such nonsense?
5.
to what effect; with what meaning?: How is one to interpret his action?
6.
what?: How do you mean? If they don't have vanilla, how about chocolate?
7.
(used as an intensifier): How seldom I go there!
8.
by what title or name?: How does one address the president?
9.
at what price: How are the new cars going, cheaper than last year's models?
10.
by what amount or in what measure or quantity?: How do you sell these tomatoes?
11.
in what form or shape?: How does the demon appear in the first act of the opera? How does the medication come?
-conjunction
12.
the manner or way in which: He couldn't figure out how to solve the problem.
13.
about the manner, condition, or way in which: I don't care how you leave your desk when you go. Be careful how you act.
14.
in whatever manner or way; however: You can travel how you please.
15.
Informal . that: He told us how he was honest and could be trusted.
-noun
16.
a question concerning the way or manner in which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending whys and hows.
17.
a way or manner of doing something: to consider all the hows and wherefores.
18.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter H.
-Idioms
19.
and how! Informal . certainly! you bet!: Am I happy? And how!
20.
Here's how, Informal . (used as a toast).
21.
how come? Informal . how is it that? why?: How come you never visit us anymore?
22.
how so? how does it happen to be so? why?: You haven't any desire to go? How so?

One of the things we strive for here is clarity of meaning in order to enhance understanding.

How things are done is not why things are done.

Why things are done is not how things are done.

How things happen is explained by science.

Why things happen is not explained by science.

The word "why" should be avoided in our dissertations & ruminations, unless it cannot be avoided.

When you can use how, then that is the proper choice.

Why do I say that? because that is the way the words should be used.

How do I say that? In english typing on my computer.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 11:52 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2010 11:52 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 662 of 1725 (595157)
12-06-2010 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by RAZD
12-06-2010 11:37 PM


Re: who what where when why and how
One of the things we strive for here is clarity of meaning in order to enhance understanding.

Clarity of meaning? With 20+ definitions for how and 7 or so for why?

That is being colossally, enormously, gargantuously, grossly, hugely, immensely, mammothly, massively, monstrously, prodigiously, stupendously, super-colossally, tremendously, vastly, whoppingly and overly pedantic, and is more likely to drive away any possible audience you may have.

Brevity and clarity are much under appreciated in writing, nowhere more so than on the internet, whereas pedanticalness sucks where ever it is found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2010 11:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2010 12:16 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 663 of 1725 (595160)
12-07-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by Coyote
12-06-2010 11:52 PM


how/why
coyote writes:

Clarity of meaning? With 20+ definitions for how and 7 or so for why?

That is being colossally, enormously, gargantuously, grossly, hugely, immensely, mammothly, massively, monstrously, prodigiously, stupendously, super-colossally, tremendously, vastly, whoppingly and overly pedantic, and is more likely to drive away any possible audience you may have.

Brevity and clarity are much under appreciated in writing, nowhere more so than on the internet, whereas pedanticalness sucks where ever it is found.

One of the things we strive for here is clarity of meaning in order to enhance understanding.

Clarity of meaning? With 20+ definitions for how and 7 or so for why?

That is being colossally, enormously, gargantuously, grossly, hugely, immensely, mammothly, massively, monstrously, prodigiously, stupendously, super-colossally, tremendously, vastly, whoppingly and overly pedantic, and is more likely to drive away any possible audience you may have.

Brevity and clarity are much under appreciated in writing, nowhere more so than on the internet, whereas pedanticalness sucks where ever it is found.

I think you meant pedanticalitudelinessificationisms.

Maybe here is the soul of wit you seek from that RAZZleDAZZle:

RAZD writes:

How things are done is not why things are done.
Why things are done is not how things are done.
How things happen is explained by science.
Why things happen is not explained by science.

Consider trying to deal with that sad broken person, Dawn Bertot. We must be precise, no?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2010 11:52 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3099 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 664 of 1725 (595517)
12-09-2010 3:50 AM


A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument
From Message 33 in thread What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only):

Buzsaw writes:

One of my problems is with the SM position that the fossil date can be determined by the age it takes on from the sediment. The sediment is nothing but compacted and hardened old soil, tiny old rock/sand particles, minerals and other inorganic matter, having long existed on the surface of the old earth before being deposited around and/or in the fossil.

That would be tantamount to dating a house from the age of the material in it. No?

Actually, (and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong on this) I think sedimentary rock isn't dated radiometrically. Instead, what they do is date the igneous rock that lies above and below a given layer of sedimentary rock, and infer its age to lie between the two. Since igneous rock is dated from the moment which it last solidified and formed a layer, it's possible to determine the relative age of fossils in the sedimentary layer.

So Buzsaw is arguing from a flawed understanding of how fossils are dated.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by DrJones*, posted 12-09-2010 4:31 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded
 Message 667 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2010 10:46 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1959
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 665 of 1725 (595521)
12-09-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Meldinoor
12-09-2010 3:50 AM


Re: A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument
One of my problems is with the SM position...

He's also confusing the scientific method with some sort of ideology.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Meldinoor, posted 12-09-2010 3:50 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 10:21 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 666 of 1725 (595553)
12-09-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by DrJones*
12-09-2010 4:31 AM


Re: A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument
DrJones* writes:

One of my problems is with the SM position...

He's also confusing the scientific method with some sort of ideology.

i wonder what his favourite SM position is? personally, i'm not into that kind of thing, but whatever floats your boat i guess.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by DrJones*, posted 12-09-2010 4:31 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 667 of 1725 (595561)
12-09-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Meldinoor
12-09-2010 3:50 AM


Re: A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument
Hi, Meldinoor.

Meldinoor writes:

A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument

What!? Never!!


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Meldinoor, posted 12-09-2010 3:50 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 668 of 1725 (598109)
12-28-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 663 by xongsmith
12-07-2010 12:16 AM


Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
Can arachnophilia make even a little lightbulb go off in Dawn's head? Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2010 12:16 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 5:21 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply
 Message 670 by anglagard, posted 12-28-2010 7:16 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply
 Message 672 by lyx2no, posted 12-28-2010 12:19 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply
 Message 673 by Panda, posted 12-28-2010 4:13 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply
 Message 674 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 7:18 PM xongsmith has not yet responded
 Message 677 by Omnivorous, posted 12-28-2010 8:38 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 669 of 1725 (598110)
12-28-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
can i bet against myself here?

*headdesk headdesk headdesk*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by jar, posted 12-28-2010 12:14 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 670 of 1725 (598113)
12-28-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
xongsmith writes:

Can arachnophilia make even a little lightbulb go off in Dawn's head? Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen.

In the words of the great immortal prophet of the 1980's, Mr T "I pity the fool."


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31519
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 671 of 1725 (598130)
12-28-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 669 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 5:21 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
'fraid I must agree with you.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 5:21 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 672 of 1725 (598131)
12-28-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
Not one that wouldn't be hidden under a basket.


When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
—Roger Waters

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 673 of 1725 (598145)
12-28-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
I have proved that Dawn guesses what people write.
This means that intelligent discourse is pointless and education is unlikely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 674 of 1725 (598151)
12-28-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
Can arachnophilia make even a little lightbulb go off in Dawn's head? Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen.

Unfortunately, Arch understands neither the method of reasoning he has chosen or the God and book he is representing. He hasnt been upfront about his own beliefs, so how could he help, giude or direct anyone else?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by bluescat48, posted 12-28-2010 7:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 675 of 1725 (598152)
12-28-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 7:18 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
And you can? His "rantings" make much more sense than yours do.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 7:18 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 7:25 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019