From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon philosophy.svg

This Philosophy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



[edit] Two more examples

I think these two count:

Que sera, sera: whatever will be, will be

Trivially true, of course, but the deeper meaning - "be a fatalist, what you do makes no difference" is rubbish.

Everything happens for a reason

OK, so the bridge collapsed because the supports finally gave out, that's a reason. But the implication is that it happened to some purpose, and that's just false.

Think you should also include Dennett's original example:

Love is just a word

"Love" is just a word. "Apple" is just a word too, but you can't eat the word "apple", while you can eat an apple. Another use/mention distinction failure.

Ciphergoth (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Love is just a word" is in the lead section talking about Dennett's formulation of it. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, so it is - thanks! Ciphergoth (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Definition sentence doesn't make sense

"It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another [meaning] that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning"

This is confusing. What the second half of this sentence is saying is basically "another meaning that sounds profound but is meaningless with respect to this other meaning." It's saying the second meaning is meaningless to the second meaning.

And why use the phrase "this deeper meaning"? This is a concept which hasn't been introduced yet, and to say "this" deeper meaning seems to refer to something anyway.

--John Salerno

I have made some alterations. What do you think? --DamoHi 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think the concept itself even makes sense. I get what he's saying, but I think Dennett is struggling to actually find a point to it. ADK...I'll freeze your racket! 11:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Really? I think the point he is trying to make is very clear in the lecture, less clear in this article perhaps. He is really arguing that virtually all of so called 'sophisticated theology' is made up of statements that seem profound but are actually not. It makes people feel comfortable with their religious beliefs so long as they don't think about them too much. A way of keeping clergyman who have no illusions about the literal truths of stories in the bible remain within the church. The best theology according to Dennett therefore is made up of deepities because they are superficially satisfying and unlikely to provoke too much reflection. --DamoHi 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The entire lecture was a bit "meh". I actually prefer Yudkowsky's "applause cue" thing, where profound but meaningless statements are used more as a signal for the audience to start clapping than to actually get a point across. That more widely applies too. ADK...I'll earn your rope! 01:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Paper shredder

The article states " the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false".

This is an ideological assertion, but it is presented as a bald fact. The argument that follows, that a person can no more be a single cell than a paper shredder, is nothing but a blatant assertion mixed with a nonsensical non sequitur.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] Another example

Is the religious anti-homosexual meme that "God / The Bible did not say Adam and Steve" a deepity? I see this as trivially true (the Bible does not mention Adam and Steve) but also false on the other earth-shattering level that it is trying to imply (that anything or anyone not mentioned in the Bible does not or should not exist). The latter intended meaning would indeed be earth-shattering, as God also did not mention any of the people or things that exist in the world, including incidentally the people who repeat this meme. --Yisfidri (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps

... it is the 'third (and further), very long explanation' that #is# significant. Some of the examples are meaningless - The Theory of Evolution is just a theory - but so is the Theory of Gravity (and in the case of you and an absence of support, the Earth always wins). Love is just a word - but it is what it represents that is significant. And is team 'me met mate'?

What percentage of advertising/political electioneering falls in the category of Deepity? ('Wide eyed innocence.') (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone using the "just a theory" bit is either forgetting or intentionally leaving out that "theory" in science is not the same as the word's meaning in modern American conversation. Arawn Emrys (talk)
'You accept gravity... well #it is only a theory# is a suitable counter-argument to the anti-evolutionists (and 'the basics of evolution make sense - but explain how insect metamorphosis/other peculiarly complex structure developed' is not the same as disbelieving evolution per se). (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Some dude's friend's teenage daughter?

Some dude's friend's teenage daughter made up a word and we have an article about it here, in the "Logic" section?

Are you guys kidding me? This should be in a "Fun:" page.

How can one delete a page? Rational1 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Age is just a number?

Every time I hear this said, it's because the woman is in her thirties while the man is in his twenties. While it can't justify statutory rape, it is a perfectly acceptable response to people claiming that "she's too old for you". It's usually a response to a social stigma harms couples where the woman happens to be older than the man.

Dear Unknown user, Don't worry about it. It doesn't matters. The truth simply doesn't matters. What do you think of "RationalWiki"? You think it's a place where the editors and moderators are dedicated to rationality? No! It's a wiki which has always consisted of the worst editors and moderators - those who simply do not have understand "wiki" at all. It consists of moderators who will banned by wikipedia in minutes, due to their inability to grasp any and all concepts of "wiki", most of the moderators here have been. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools