Argumentum ad dictionarium

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 8 September 2012 at 02:22.
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armondikov&offset=20120908022212&lqt_mustshow=13291 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

It needs a page. (Yes, someone did hit me with this argumentum today in particularly annoying way. How did you guess?)

    Nebuchadnezzar (talk)06:36, 5 September 2012

    I can give it a shot, I don't really need to do real work today. That's for losers!

      Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator08:51, 5 September 2012
       

      If I start it as a stock rant, do you want to add the Wittgenstein references?

        Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator09:23, 5 September 2012

        Put in a subpage as it was turning into too much of an extended rant for the mainspace.

          Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator10:03, 5 September 2012

          Heh. So is it an essay now instead of an article?

            Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:40, 5 September 2012

            I want to make an article, I just didn't think it was quite mainspace material in that form.

              Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator20:46, 5 September 2012
               
               
               

              Oh, look, an example in the wild!

                Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator11:23, 7 September 2012

                WTF? We have a RationalWikiWikiWiki now?

                  Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:39, 7 September 2012

                  Always had one, this is something that I think cropped up following the Tisane affair.

                    Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator00:51, 8 September 2012

                    Will it be funnier than that other alternate reality wiki, that's the real question.

                      ТyILAB00:59, 8 September 2012

                      Well "What does rationality mean? From Dictionary.com, we have..." is pretty fucking funny. If you're me.

                        Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator01:03, 8 September 2012

                        oooh

                          ТyILAB01:07, 8 September 2012

                          So, the purposes of the wiki seem twofold: 1) import a load of crap from Wikipedia to reach bare-minimum levels of functionality and 2) completely hash up concepts and articles that have nothing to do with the original stated purposes.

                            Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator01:12, 8 September 2012

                            Seems that way. As it is run by Libertoonians I am sure the magic of the market will lead it to fame and glory.

                              ТyILAB01:14, 8 September 2012

                              Given that it's trying to associate itself with this site and uses as much of the RWW branding as possible, then has this sort of shit on it, I think that moves it into the Serious Fucking Business category. Ergo, let's destroy it.

                                Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator01:17, 8 September 2012

                                You still have the big blue S thingymabobber?

                                  ТyILAB01:19, 8 September 2012

                                  No, but I do have a large turnip.

                                    Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator01:45, 8 September 2012

                                    I have my robes of state.

                                      ТyILAB01:46, 8 September 2012

                                      No, really, I'll get a picture tomorrow.

                                        Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator01:47, 8 September 2012

                                        I swear to the god I don't believe in that it's frickin' huge and looks like a thingy.

                                          Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator01:48, 8 September 2012

                                          Do you know how hard it is to even find cat fur robes?

                                            ТyILAB01:50, 8 September 2012
                                             
                                             
                                             

                                            Did you... find it laying on the street?

                                              "Shut up, Brx."01:48, 8 September 2012

                                              If you define "it" as "your mom" and "on the street" as "in my bed, thoroughly satisfied", then yes.

                                                Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator01:59, 8 September 2012
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 

                                                [1]

                                                They might want to check over the assertion that CP is the main focus of the site. It's currently September 8th, and WIGO:CP has... 1 story in the last 8 days. The clogosphere, blogosphere and world WIGOs have 50 stories between them in the same time. 150 edits on recent changes restricted to the Conservapedia namespace stretches back to September 2nd, 150 edits on recent changes with CP excluded barely covers the last 6 hours. Hardly the activity pattern of a site that prides itself on trolling Conservapedia.

                                                The more I look the more I'm wondering who's behind it. I can't figure out if it really is Tisane or "one of us" trolling.

                                                  Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator02:14, 8 September 2012

                                                  The Uncyclopedia article is pretty funny too.

                                                    ТyILAB02:17, 8 September 2012
                                                     

                                                    No, definitely Nathan Larson, as it's hosted in the same folder as libertapedia.

                                                      Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator02:22, 8 September 2012
                                                       
                                                       
                                                       
                                                       
                                                       
                                                       

                                                      What fresh hell is this?

                                                        TheLateGatsby (talk)23:49, 7 September 2012
                                                         

                                                        It really does need a page. Yesterday I was arguing with this guy pulling the same old 'we can never be certain of anything we can only be reasonably sure of it' spiel, except then he demanded we not use the words 'to be' and 'exists' because according to him no one could define them. By his own logic.

                                                        So basically we could not make the argument that we can be certain of existence because he banned the word and concept of existence itself.

                                                        It's a really cheap way to cut off the other side of an argument.

                                                          ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious11:31, 7 September 2012

                                                          There is a school of thought to that effect with "to be". See E-Prime, and also Rationalist taboo. Though these are best used as critical thinking exercises that get you to think about what those terms mean without being lazy about it. You constantly use a ton of inferences whenever you say a single word, so in order to be clear you either need to a) unpack it thoroughly to say what you mean by it in very exhaustive and comprehensive terms (traditional philosophical discourse) or b) avoid its use so that the inferences don't creep in even subconsciously (E-Prime and Rationalist Taboo methods).

                                                          What does "exist" mean? Saying "it exists because it is" depends on both "exists" as "is" - and those are often defined circularly. BUT, If you take "exist" to mean something that constrains your expectation of what you will experience, then that's something more concrete. See, for instance, The Dragon in My Garage for an example where this becomes quite important - how can you say the dragon still "exists" when it has no meaningful interaction with the world? Indeed, the dragon is often defined as having no meaningful interaction with the world. But it still "exists"? I expect not to be able to leave the house if the door is closed, therefore the door is solid and exists. I don't expect to be able to sit down on this invisible chair that exerts no force, and if I park my arse there I'll just fall down - so the chair doesn't exist. This seems all grand and sensible until you tack the phrase "this is how scientific observation works" onto it, at which point people shy away and say "ah, but you can't prove it with science!" - As if this magically changes things.

                                                          If you try to define "to be" as a verb, you might run into serious trouble. Mostly, we use it to mean "has properties similar to this grouping". Aka, Socrates has a dick, therefore he is (read, "shares similar properties of the group") a man. But if you take it a little further, you could start thinking of "to be" as being some sort of essentialist quality. Now, if you want to play an essentialist card that's fine, but I don't see it being particularly useful in arguing or discussing anything. "Existence" being some essentialist "state of being" doesn't really help us at all. In fact, it's a complete non-explanation.

                                                          So, the guy you're speaking to is actually right. If you remove the cheap and lazy words from your linguistic space, you can explore them more deeply from the point of view of your conceptual space. You haven't banned the concept of existence by banning the word, you just force a more critical evaluation of what it really means "to exist".

                                                            Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator11:55, 7 September 2012

                                                            Well yeah. But the most crushing part of this kind of debate with me is agreeing with the concept but having a 'but...' about the argument itself, which leads the other person to keep fighting when you aren't really warring with him.

                                                              It's not, of course, an excuse to simply define away your problems. Proving something is a linguistic illusion doesn't make it a conceptual illusion (and vice versa).

                                                                Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator12:56, 7 September 2012

                                                                That's why I'm an ontological pluralist. (Yes, I did write that just to shoehorn in Wittgenstein.)

                                                                  Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:59, 7 September 2012

                                                                  I think I might try that film example next time anyone raises the fact that fiction "isn't real". See how far I get before everyone is thoroughly confused and/or pissed off.

                                                                    Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator23:22, 7 September 2012
                                                                     
                                                                     
                                                                     
                                                                     
                                                                     

                                                                    But, what is a dictionary, really? Let's look at the definition...

                                                                      "Shut up, Brx."11:51, 7 September 2012
                                                                       
                                                                      Personal tools
                                                                      Namespaces

                                                                      Variants
                                                                      Actions
                                                                      Navigation
                                                                      Community
                                                                      Tools
                                                                      support