Janissy wrote:
You have provided reliable sources written by reliable people for the definition of a word. But to me it looks like Verdandi isn't disputing the definition of the word but instead is examining the social forces behind how the word is used. Is somebody an idiot if they don't know what Asperger's Syndrome is? Not by that dictionary definition, since knowledge of what Asperger's Syndrome is has not entered the realm of common knowledge so one can't be considered an idiot for not knowing it. Is somebody an idiot if they use YahooAnswers instead of googling in order to find out the meaning of a word? Yes, I think they are according to colloquial use since my own bias says that using an obscure resource to possibly find something out is not as smart as using a ubiquitous resource to get far more accurate information.
Verdandi is examining that bias. This is the point of her posts.
This is pretty close. I don't get the need to label people as "stupid" or "idiots" or "morons" or in other ways that describe them as unintelligent in a way that somehow makes them responsible for being so. It strikes me as very strange that anyone would be so devoted to the status quo that they would attempt to present dictionary definitions as ironclad arguments supporting such usage. Dictionary definitions are rudimentary descriptions of what words mean to provide a reasonable foundation for understanding unfamiliar words, but real world usage tends to go well beyond such definitions.
I do find the bias strange, and I find it even stranger that someone would so adamantly defend the bias.
Quote:
Logic isn't flawed but people can come to a false conclusion even if their understanding of logic is correct and they use the logic perfectly. This is because logic is just a way to process data and incomplete or incorrect data will lead to a logical yet wrong conclusion. GIGO, as Verdandi said. This isn't an incorrect understanding of logic. It's just bad data.
Thank you. It bothers me that more people do not seem to understand this. That so many people (and I mean in general, not one specific neurology) refer to "logic" as if it is an infallible tool that can only lead to factual truth, when it can easily be abused, misused, or simply misunderstood. Some people even just say their claims are logical while not offering any real logic to support the notion that they are being logical.
Quote:
1)Does doing something idiotic make a person an idiot forevermore?
2)Is it actually idiotic to use yahooanswers rather than google? Just because I think so doesn't make it so.
Now "idiotic" is a different word, as it is an adjective that presumably describes an action. I think it's more defensible as it doesn't seem to be a label that would provide an enduring description of what a person may be like.
Yahooanswers annoys me because questions fill up my google search results when I am trying to track down factual information, but people use it. Some people troll on it. Some people could use a pointer to google with some basic tutorials on effective research, but for the most part I don't really think about what the people asking or answering the questions are like.
Thank you for explaining your perception of my motivations and arguments. They were fairly accurate, and possibly stated things better than I was able to.
11 Dec 2012, 7:12 am
