[extropy-chat] Bill Moyers' Comments - Global Environment CitizenAward

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >> This would be equivalent to claiming
> >> that chemistry was
> >> actually modern alchemy
> >
> > It is, in fact.  Trace the history of chemistry:
> there
> > is no question among serious historians that
> modern
> > chemistry had its origins in alchemy.
> 
> Having origins in and being the same as are quite
> different things, yes?

Yes, but that was not quite what was stated.
"Chemistry" != "alchemy", but "chemistry" = "modern
alchemy".  Note the "modern", which can be read as
"has origins in".

> Why attempt to twist yourself into a pretzel
> like this?

To demonstrate why caution should be taken when
choosing one's words. ;)  In this case, what you
probably meant to say was just "chemistry was actually
alchemy", not "chemistry was actually modern alchemy".

It's semantics, true.  But semantics can be (and often
are) used by our opponents to twist the meanings of
our words far away from what we meant, even while
keeping them perfectly in context.  This was a
relatively minor example.