Argumentum ad dictionarium

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Argumentum ad dictionarium

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

Perfect page quote: "Many people routinely make the mistake of thinking that all words can be consistently applied as logical categories (an issue often intensified by strong faith in dictionaries)."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:10, 12 September 2012

Ah, ceci n'est pas une pipe!

Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator08:29, 12 September 2012
 

Also, language game probably needs done, preferably without the bullshit as the opening paragraph of that article explains it better in a few sentences than WP and the SEP.

Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator08:31, 12 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
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

... and I just ran whois. Yep.

ТyILAB02:24, 8 September 2012

Quite bad that he seems to be joking about the kiddy-fiddling.

Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator02:26, 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