RE: Irredeemably tainted words.

John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:14:34 -0600

Just a quick note from a lurker: I couldn't agree more with your point, =
Loren.

If one's goal is insularity and intellectual isolationism, then drop the =
word. If the goal is to engage others in discussion, and potentially =
change the scientific community's view, then use the word precisely with =
an explicitly stated meaning, even if this means pointing out that the =
term can be very equivocal, particularly from a precise philosophical =
perspective. After all, "equivocal" isn't the same as "useless"; more =
like "dangerous".

But at least when talking with scientists or those laymen who are =
scientifically oriented, the alternative here to danger is unnecessary =
irrelevance.

--John

----------
From: Loren Haarsma[SMTP:lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 1997 5:24 am
To: evolution
Subject: Irredeemably tainted words.

I really enjoyed what Steve Jones wrote about "mediate creation," and I=20
agree with much of it.

But Steve's essay, and Jim's concurrence, on how the word "evolution" is =

tainted beyond redemption got me wondering. Why stop there? What other =

words are so tainted that we should stop fighting to redeem them from=20
anti-theistic metaphysical baggage, and simply eschew their use?

How about "mechanics" and "law"? Too closely associated with Deism and=20
Mechanistic Determinism.

"Chance" has got to go, obviously.

"Behavior" and "conditioning" were ruined by the Behaviorists.

"Logic" and "evidence" are too closely associated with Logical=20
Positivism.

And "quantum mechanics" has got too much of that New Age/Mysticism stuff =

in it these days.

--