fayfreethinkers.com

Doug wrote:That's just the way we use language.

Savonarola wrote:No it's not. When I say that my residence is leprechaun-free, that doesn't mean that there's a leprechaun living in the corner of my attic minding his own business so that I am unaffected. Instead, that is a hack, an exploitation of a mathematical loophole. It's the way that these people have hijacked the language.

DOUG
OK, what is a "smoke-free zone"? A zone where there is no smoke, or no smoking? No, because you can smoke there just as well as anywhere else, but you're not supposed to.

Sometimes "X-free" means it has no X, sometimes it means it has very little X, and sometimes it means that you aren't supposed to have X there. Sometimes "chemical" means the subject matter of chemistry, sometimes it means "contaminant." Sometimes, too, it means illegal drugs (e.g. "He just ingested some...er...'chemicals.'") That's our language, hijacked or not.

DAR (piano technician)
I don't know how many times I have had a customer tell me they think their piano "may need to have it's pads replaced."

For the record, of the 8 to 10 thousand parts in a piano, none of them are ever correctly referred to as a "pad." (They are referring to the felt "hammers" and 99% of the time they don't need to be replaced and will never be replaced.)

All the time people tell me they have or know of a fantastic old piano with the back made of solid brass. They are referring to the cast iron/steel harp (usually painted gold) and no piano harp has ever been made with brass (it's far to soft).

Just the other day I was again told of a neighbor who has a 12 foot grand piano. Ah, no they don't. The longest in common production is about 9 foot. Bosendorfer had/has a 9' 6" but those are rare. Fazioli has a 10' 2" but there are only 20 of them.

Sometimes I correct people, usually I don't anymore, unless they are annoying.

Language is made up of temporarily agreed upon grunts we make to communicate ideas. These agreed upon grunts are constantly changing and adapting. It's nearly an anarchic system. Once in a while we agree to call a planet a certain name, or change it to another, but if enough people don't agree it doesn't happen. There are no rules and dictionaries reflect common usage and they are constantly changed.

In our fields of specialty, philosophy, piano tuning, chemistry, we need to sometimes be very specific. This allows us to function at very high levels of accuracy, precision and depth. A group of philosophers can easily speak in such a way that those untrained will not understand. Same with chemistry and I dare say, same with a group of piano technicians talking about some arcane aspect of string inharmonicity or competing temperaments. But I am resigned to the fact that the general populace is just going to use language as it suits them and if you want to be strict about it (and throw the word illiterate around as SAV does above) we are all generally ignorant and illiterate outside of our fields. So you gotta be a little flexible unless people are just plain erroneous to the degree that their usage is causing problems. The word chemical has a bad/scary reputation because of poison and "contamination." Probably most people think that if an argument is "valid" it follows that it is true (not in philosophy). When people see the felt on the hammer that hits the piano string the first word that comes to mind is always going to be "pad." (And people talking about powering hydrogen cars are going to speak of hydrogen fuel as an "energy carrier" even though from a physics standpoint this is just so wrong).

As Bruce Hornsby famously sang in his hit song in the 80's, that's just...

DOUG
As a specialist in philosophy of language, I completely agree with Darrel.

There's a lot more I could say about this issue, but I won't.

I'm not arguing that languages don't evolve. I'm not arguing that the word "chemicals" isn't used in this ridiculous way. In fact, I'm arguing the exact opposite: that the word "chemicals" is being used in a manner worthy of ridicule, or -- at the very least -- in a manner worthy of ridicule when serious arguments are trying to be made.
Maybe it's not such a big deal when someone says that their piano's back is made of brass, despite the fact that the statement is blatantly incorrect. But I think it's a big deal if somebody started making scientific claims about the toxic effects of the back of a piano because it's "made of brass."

Darrel wrote:But I am resigned to the fact that the general populace is just going to use language as it suits them and if you want to be strict about it (and throw the word illiterate around as SAV does above) we are all generally ignorant and illiterate outside of our fields.

Okay, how about I qualify the "illiterate" with a word like "scientifically" or "chemically"? Oh, wait, I did. And that's my whole point. Why accept statements about science from someone who knows nothing about science? Why accept alarmism about "chemicals" from a person who is afraid of table salt? Instead of making an argument based buzzwords to convince the dumb masses, make an argument based on the merits so that it can't be challenged or picked apart by people who aren't idiots.

DAR
I don't think we are disagreeing about anything. I just wanted to write a little rant/blurb on language. It is possible, sometimes, to be a little too strict about the lines, about the boxes, we put words in. That's all. When someone's erroneous usage leads to problems then they should be corrected, absolutely. That's why I was so glad when you wrote your first response in this thread.

D.

Savonarola wrote: Why accept statements about science from someone who knows nothing about science?

DOUG
You can accept them--but not as scientifically accurate statements. If the populace of a town complains to the mayor that they "can taste chemicals in the water" and demand that tests be performed to make sure it is potable, we can accept that they are saying something about their concern about the water's safety, but they are not being scientifically accurate. They are making a statement about their concern, but not necessarily about science.

Savonarola wrote: Why accept alarmism about "chemicals" from a person who is afraid of table salt? Instead of making an argument based buzzwords to convince the dumb masses, make an argument based on the merits so that it can't be challenged or picked apart by people who aren't idiots.

DOUG
Don't accept alarmism in that way. That's why people like you are important. You help set the record straight. If we didn't have scientists keeping the public informed, we'd revert to the Dark Ages in a matter of months.

Standing in line marking time--
Waiting for the welfare dime
cause they cant buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old ladies eyes
Just for fun he says "get a job"

Thats just the way it is
Some things will never change
Thats just the way it is
But don't you believe them

They say hey little boy you can't go
Where the others go
cause you don't look like they do
Said hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules
He said, son

Thats just the way it is
Some things will never change
Thats just the way it is
But dont you believe them

Well they passed a law in 64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar

Thats just the way it is
Some things will never change
Thats just the way it is
But don't you believe them

YES WE CAN!

DAR
A couple years ago on a trip to Vegas Bruce Hornsby sat down right across from me in the airport. I was starstruck (as is my way) and sneakily took this secret picture with my pocket PC. He probably saw me. I get all goofy when around famous people. I grew up in a Canadian town of 10,000. We didn't get out much.



D.

how on earth did you recognize him?

still, that's a way cool picture.

Betsy wrote:how on earth did you recognize him?

DAR
Mr. Hornsby is an extraordinary pianist.

D.

Darrel wrote:Mr. Hornsby is an extraordinary pianist. D.

Is this pianist envy?

DAR
Pianist respect.

still, I would never have recognized him. Did he get a perm or something? No, probably just got older.

pianist envy. heh.