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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 12, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- 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".
>

Not with a lot of justification it can't.  Where exactly do you draw 
boundaries about the meaning of a word?


>> 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".
>

I am perfectly content with the original word.  I am not content with 
this "lesson" I neither asked for or need.


> 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.
>

Thanks loads I'm sure.

- samantha