"Or to put it another way a Lehman speaking to Lehman is using a Lehman’s definition of theory which has literally nothing to do with the one that you’re talking about."
Or to put it another way a Lehman speaking to Lehman is using a Lehman’s definition of theory which has literally nothing to do with the one that you’re talking about.
Equivocation is certainly a problem, but I don’t think it’s what you’ve identified here. Equivocation is when the same person uses the same word to mean two different things in the same conversation.
I will agree that the statement evolution is the theory is unhelpful. I would say that evolution is nonsense and I think that’s a little more helpful. But it is certainly true that when you’re speaking a language you do have to understand the way most people hear a word. it is usually unhelpful to have a definition that is so technical to a given field that when you speak to anyone outside that field they don’t understand what you mean.
And so if a policeman says I have a theory about this case, he certainly doesn’t even remotely mean what you define here. And yet he’s not being stupid and ignorant. He is in fact an expert in his field. Assuming he’s not as stupid and ignorant policeman.
Well except for the fact that in the rest of your article you lay out the claim that they have no idea what theory means. So I have the feeling that for 99,000 out of 100,000 people that use it they are actually using theory in the standard English way consistently throughout their speech.
What they don’t realise is that you have a definition that differs from them or any of their audience.
"What they don’t realise is that you have a definition that differs from them or any of their audience."
The fact that a word can have two accepted definitions, and I can understand BOTH in proper context, and "they" don't is literally why the equivocation fallacy exists.
Thanks for restating my article for the comment section.
Except as we discussed above in order for something to be an equation the person using the word has to mean two different things by it. It is not an equivocation if they mean one thing and you mean another. And by you here I can include the entire scientific community. if a layman says that evolution is just a theory, and they are speaking to an audience of non-scientific people, there is no equivocation going on because no one in the room uses your definition. No one understands it in the way that you use it.
And again, I meaning you meaning the entire scientific community. So you are welcome to believe they’re in error but in order to say there equivocating they themselves would have to be using the word in two different ways. And I think you’ve shown pretty clearly that they aren’t.
"Except as we discussed above in order for something to be an equation the person using the word has to mean two different things by it....no one understands..."
Being ignorant of the fact that the word they're using has two different meanings doesn't negate the fact
Unintentional equivocation is still equivocation.
And as I pointed out around the second paragraph, asking the person to define the terms is a reasonable and logical step..when they refuse to, that's not an excuse.
Well, I don’t think that using a word in only one way, which the audience will only understand in one way, is ‘equivocation’.
But certainly we can both agree that speaking of the ‘theory of evolution’ is unhelpful in 99% of cases. Myself I tend to say something on the order of ‘The Atheist creation myth’ or somesuch; which I hope my audience understands, whether scientific or lay.
Layman
"Or to put it another way a Lehman speaking to Lehman is using a Lehman’s definition of theory which has literally nothing to do with the one that you’re talking about."
And has literally nothing to do with the article.
Or to put it another way a Lehman speaking to Lehman is using a Lehman’s definition of theory which has literally nothing to do with the one that you’re talking about.
Equivocation is certainly a problem, but I don’t think it’s what you’ve identified here. Equivocation is when the same person uses the same word to mean two different things in the same conversation.
I will agree that the statement evolution is the theory is unhelpful. I would say that evolution is nonsense and I think that’s a little more helpful. But it is certainly true that when you’re speaking a language you do have to understand the way most people hear a word. it is usually unhelpful to have a definition that is so technical to a given field that when you speak to anyone outside that field they don’t understand what you mean.
And so if a policeman says I have a theory about this case, he certainly doesn’t even remotely mean what you define here. And yet he’s not being stupid and ignorant. He is in fact an expert in his field. Assuming he’s not as stupid and ignorant policeman.
"And so if a policeman says I have a theory about this case, he certainly doesn’t even remotely mean what you define here"
Correct. Which is why I think that police officer is justified in his use of the word in that context, but it is not appropriate in a scientific one.
"Equivocation is when the same person uses the same word to mean two different things in the same conversation."
This is precisely what happens when someone says
"Evolution is just a theory" as I outlined in the intro.
This layman's argument relies on equivocating the two meanings of "theory"
Well except for the fact that in the rest of your article you lay out the claim that they have no idea what theory means. So I have the feeling that for 99,000 out of 100,000 people that use it they are actually using theory in the standard English way consistently throughout their speech.
What they don’t realise is that you have a definition that differs from them or any of their audience.
"What they don’t realise is that you have a definition that differs from them or any of their audience."
The fact that a word can have two accepted definitions, and I can understand BOTH in proper context, and "they" don't is literally why the equivocation fallacy exists.
Thanks for restating my article for the comment section.
Except as we discussed above in order for something to be an equation the person using the word has to mean two different things by it. It is not an equivocation if they mean one thing and you mean another. And by you here I can include the entire scientific community. if a layman says that evolution is just a theory, and they are speaking to an audience of non-scientific people, there is no equivocation going on because no one in the room uses your definition. No one understands it in the way that you use it.
And again, I meaning you meaning the entire scientific community. So you are welcome to believe they’re in error but in order to say there equivocating they themselves would have to be using the word in two different ways. And I think you’ve shown pretty clearly that they aren’t.
"Except as we discussed above in order for something to be an equation the person using the word has to mean two different things by it....no one understands..."
Being ignorant of the fact that the word they're using has two different meanings doesn't negate the fact
Unintentional equivocation is still equivocation.
And as I pointed out around the second paragraph, asking the person to define the terms is a reasonable and logical step..when they refuse to, that's not an excuse.
Well, I don’t think that using a word in only one way, which the audience will only understand in one way, is ‘equivocation’.
But certainly we can both agree that speaking of the ‘theory of evolution’ is unhelpful in 99% of cases. Myself I tend to say something on the order of ‘The Atheist creation myth’ or somesuch; which I hope my audience understands, whether scientific or lay.
"What they don’t realise is that you have a definition that differs from them or any of their audience."
The objective definition of a word in a scientific context is not "my definition"
I will not allow you to diminish or belittle the scientific definition of a word as something I made up.
Am I clear?
Am I clear?
Yes or no?