A thread on evolution

[Herman Hedning]

And? It's a neologism. That's hardly surprising. So are the words quark, cyberspace, internet, brunch, smog, chortle, nerd, laser, feminist, yuppie and yahoo.

New words get added to dictionaries all the time.

Some of those words are more than a hundred years old, but point taken nevertheless. They were neologisms at some point.

 

[Herman Hedning]

double post

 

[Obliquinaut]

Dictionaries tend to generally define one word at a time.

Yeah, that was what I was thinking. Although I know some n-grams have their own entries in some dictionaries. But Grady's suggestion for this particular n-gram as being required to be in the dictionary was kinda off the rails.

(The other day in one of my local bookstores I found a copy of the OED. I have been wanting a hardcopy for a long time! I almost bought it, but it's like >20 years old. Still it is sorely tempting me. I love unabridged dictionaries and the OED is the granddaddy of 'em!)

They do not define phrases. Second dictionaries are not "official".

Correct. There are a few languages (French I believe) that do have some serious coordinated efforts to have "official language bases", but usually dictionaries are a few years behind common parlance and usage.

Thirdly, until you demonstrate a serious flaw with Wikipedia, it is still a valid source. Your unsupported assertions are worthless.

ONe doesn't even need to find the phrase in Wiki! One can simply put together the common meanings of the two words and know what they say.

For instance "this phrase that I am typing now is nowhere in any dictionary", but it surely makes sense and can be interpreted to be a meaningful statement.

 

[Obliquinaut]

And? It's a neologism.

I don't think it would even qualify as a neologism since it isn't really a new term, but rather a phrase that combines two words each relying on their old previous definitions. There's really nothing "new" about the phrase "quote mining", even if it had never been used before.

"This phrase which I, Obliquinaut, am typing on my MacBook has never been written before today, July 12, 2017" is not a neologism, but it is a perfectly new phrase.

New words get added to dictionaries all the time.

Correct! This critique Grady is going after is surreal.

 

[lesliedellow]

(The other day in one of my local bookstores I found a copy of the OED. I have been wanting a hardcopy for a long time! I almost bought it, but it's like >20 years old. Still it is sorely tempting me. I love unabridged dictionaries and the OED is the granddaddy of 'em!)

Everybody to his own. I suppose it is marginally more interesting than reading the telephone directory.

 

[pitabread]

I still can't believe the discussion has drifted to explaining how dictionaries work.

 

[majj27]

 

[Obliquinaut]

I wonder what happened to Gradyll's question he hadn't seen answered in ten years? Did it really exist?

It is probably the enduring question of "Why doesn't everyone just believe me when I say something?" (That seems to be Ray Comfort's biggest question at any rate.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

I still can't believe the discussion has drifted to explaining how dictionaries work.

Isn't this ultimately how all creation/evolution debates go? It starts off with the Creationist claiming (or in this case having someone else claim) that evolutionists are ebil atheists and are wrong and likely going to burn in hell followed by grotesque oversimplifications of the science or outright misapprehension of the science.

The scientists jump in and say
1. Not all evolutionists are atheists
2. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis
3. Detailed discussions of what the science ACTUALLY says

This is usually responded to by endless citations of Creationist websites and their misapprehesion or misapplication of the science.

<<fast forward 175 pages of debate>>

The creationist has by now abandoned all known logical constructs and rhetorical skill leaving the evilutionists to explain how syllogisms work.

<<fast forward 150 more pages>>

Now we are at the point where we are debating the meaning of common words and how words work.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dictionaries tend to generally define one word at a time. They do not define phrases. Second dictionaries are not "official". Thirdly, until you demonstrate a serious flaw with Wikipedia, it is still a valid source. Your unsupported assertions are worthless.

so you can't find it in any official dictionary (I rest my case)

 

[createdtoworship]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how language is used and has has previously been used. They don't determine how it should be used.

There's no such thing as an "official" dictionary either (at least not in English).



Not a dictionary, but here's an "official" source that uses it (a text book).

Argumentation and Debate By Austin J. Freeley, David L. Steinberg, 13th edition 2013. Page 80:

"Taking evidence out of context, also referred to as quote mining, contextomy, suppressed evidence or cherry picking, my offer a convenient way to find the quotes and conclusions which will support a claim, or to avoid consideration of parts of the evidence which are counter to your conclusion, but it is intellectually dishonest and when brought to light likely to be a counterproductive strategy."​

And? It's a neologism. That's hardly surprising. So are the words quark, cyberspace, internet, brunch, smog, chortle, nerd, laser, feminist, yuppie and yahoo.

New words get added to dictionaries all the time.

so you can't find an official dictionary that has it in it, I rest my case.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, that was what I was thinking. Although I know some n-grams have their own entries in some dictionaries. But Grady's suggestion for this particular n-gram as being required to be in the dictionary was kinda off the rails.

(The other day in one of my local bookstores I found a copy of the OED. I have been wanting a hardcopy for a long time! I almost bought it, but it's like >20 years old. Still it is sorely tempting me. I love unabridged dictionaries and the OED is the granddaddy of 'em!)



Correct. There are a few languages (French I believe) that do have some serious coordinated efforts to have "official language bases", but usually dictionaries are a few years behind common parlance and usage.



ONe doesn't even need to find the phrase in Wiki! One can simply put together the common meanings of the two words and know what they say.

For instance "this phrase that I am typing now is nowhere in any dictionary", but it surely makes sense and can be interpreted to be a meaningful statement.

I agree the OED is probably the best dictionary out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you can't find it in any official dictionary (I rest my case)

Yes, you are wrong twice.

First because one does not go looking for phrases in a dictionary.

And second, there are no "official dictionaries".

Repeating errors when one has been corrected only makes on look bad.

Repeating errors that are wrong on multiple levels makes on look very bad.

 

[Obliquinaut]

so you can't find an official dictionary that has it in it, I rest my case.

And you cannot find a dictionary on earth that has the phrase you just typed. So it has NO MEANING.

Right?

QED

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still can't believe the discussion has drifted to explaining how dictionaries work.

When one is wrong one grasps at straws. Who is demanding an "official dictionary"?

 

[Jimmy D]

 

[Jimmy D]

When one is wrong one grasps at straws. Who is demanding an "official dictionary"?

"Official dictionary" does not appear in any dictionary.

 

[majj27]

"Official dictionary" does not appear in any dictionary.

Although to be fair neither does this:

TAKE THAT DAWKINS.

 

[bhsmte]

Isn't this ultimately how all creation/evolution debates go? It starts off with the Creationist claiming (or in this case having someone else claim) that evolutionists are ebil atheists and are wrong and likely going to burn in hell followed by grotesque oversimplifications of the science or outright misapprehension of the science.

The scientists jump in and say
1. Not all evolutionists are atheists
2. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis
3. Detailed discussions of what the science ACTUALLY says

This is usually responded to by endless citations of Creationist websites and their misapprehesion or misapplication of the science.

<<fast forward 175 pages of debate>>

The creationist has by now abandoned all known logical constructs and rhetorical skill leaving the evilutionists to explain how syllogisms work.

<<fast forward 150 more pages>>

Now we are at the point where we are debating the meaning of common words and how words work.

These debates are entertaining to observe the human psychology in play.

 

[pitabread]

Now we are at the point where we are debating the meaning of common words and how words work.

I've seen some pretty odd and nonsensical things in my debates and discussions with creationists over the years. But I think disputing whether "quote mining" is a real thing is a new record for weirdness.