PDA

View Full Version : semantics



Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 07:32 AM
we all play with it but I wish more people understood the lie built into it.

for instance... a table saw is designed to cut
a table saw cuts boards... per design
a table saw cuts fingers... per design

generally, who buys into semantics as if it were ture? why?

Paul Pless
03-09-2012, 07:33 AM
fart

Ian McColgin
03-09-2012, 07:39 AM
I don't follow how semantics has anything to do with table saw safety design. Is this an opening to rant about that sort of new brake system some safety advocates want all table saw manufacturors to start using or is there some other more obscure point?

Perhaps we can agree that while table saws are not designed for the purpose of cutting fingers, there are both features and practices that reduce the risk of accidentally getting blood on the blade.

SMARTINSEN
03-09-2012, 07:43 AM
Are we talking about table saws, or is this a more ethereal discussion?

Either way, I have no idea what you are trying to get at:D

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 07:48 AM
I don't follow how semantics has anything to do with table saw safety design. Is this an opening to rant about that sort of new brake system some safety advocates want all table saw manufacturors to start using or is there some other more obscure point?

Perhaps we can agree that while table saws are not designed for the purpose of cutting fingers, there are both features and practices that reduce the risk of accidentally getting blood on the blade.

it is just an example that comes to mind... my interest is in the use and misuse of semantics, not table saws. some perceptive fellow will eventually remember that guns were said to be designed to kill people, the other day... it's what got me thinking about semantics (this time). the saw cuts fingers and the same semantical misrepresentation used in the example could, correctly, be said to indicate that saws were meant to cut fingers off... a semantical misrepresentation, depending on what 'some' are predisposed to think.

semantics... any semantics... take saws and guns out of it and ask if the semantical lie/misrepresentation is purposful or accidental

I am hoping not to get on yet another gun discussion... my desired topic is 'semantics'... I'd like some education on semantics in general

Mrleft8
03-09-2012, 07:53 AM
I hear they can spread awful diseases.....

Paul Pless
03-09-2012, 08:00 AM
my desired topic is 'semantics'... meaning what:d

SMARTINSEN
03-09-2012, 08:01 AM
meaning what:d
:D:D:D

Ian McColgin
03-09-2012, 08:10 AM
Ah, now we are closer. Phillip is by indirection leading us to a critique of misleading uses of language.

For example, some people call Obama a socialist. Since nothing in Obama's past or presence has any resemblence to the programs of actual socialists (just ask Bernie Sanders) we might conclude that calling Obama a socialist is not meant as a statement of fact but is meant to work on prejudices against socialists as if it were a statement of a fact.

Or we could look at the more complex example Phillip hints at, examining both the language of gun use and the development of guns in their various forms for sport, hunt, crime, policing and war. We could test whether a hand gun kept explicitly for home defense means that gun was designed to kill people. Is the capacity to kill an essential or an incidental part of the hand gun's design? Would that matter much to either a dead home invader or the home owner now faced with many police forms to fill out?

Keith Wilson
03-09-2012, 08:13 AM
Definition of SEMANTICS

1: the study of meanings:

a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development

b (1) : semiotics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semiotics) (2) : a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

2: general semantics: a doctrine and educational discipline intended to improve habits of response of human beings to their environment and one another especially by training in the more critical use of words and other symbols

3
a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning

b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

(Source) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics)

I think you're talking about 3B, possibly the logical fallacy of "equivocation". This is where two different meanings of a word are used in the same argument, but that fact isn't made clear. You can read more about it here. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html) Logical fallacies are fun to study. You'd be astounded at how common they are, particularly in writing intended to convince people of something.

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:17 AM
(Source) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics)

I think you're talking about 3B, possibly the logical fallacy of "equivocation". This is where two different meanings of a word are used in the same argument, but that fact isn't made clear. You can read more about it here. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html) Logical fallacies are fun to study. You'd be astounded at how common they are, particularly in writing intended to convince people of something.

yes... accidental of on purpose?

Donn
03-09-2012, 08:18 AM
fart

That's ture...unless you're anti-semantic.

Ian McColgin
03-09-2012, 08:20 AM
Too late to warn folk to set their coffee down and swallow before reading #12.

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:22 AM
if, by telling a partial truth, one leads another to believe something which is not true, has a lie been told? If someone 'leads' another to believe something which is not true but does it without actually voicing a lie... has he told a lie or just fooled someone?

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:23 AM
Too late to warn folk to set their coffee down and swallow before reading #12.

that one was over my head

Mrleft8
03-09-2012, 08:25 AM
I think that that is known colloquially as a "Lie by omission".

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:28 AM
I think that that is known colloquially as a "Lie by omission".

culpability?

SamSam
03-09-2012, 08:30 AM
it is just an example that comes to mind... my interest is in the use and misuse of semantics, not table saws. some perceptive fellow will eventually remember that guns were said to be designed to kill people, the other day... it's what got me thinking about semantics (this time). the saw cuts fingers and the same semantical misrepresentation used in the example could, correctly, be said to indicate that saws were meant to cut fingers off... a semantical misrepresentation, depending on what 'some' are predisposed to think.

semantics... any semantics... take saws and guns out of it and ask if the semantical lie/misrepresentation is purposful or accidental

I am hoping not to get on yet another gun discussion... my desired topic is 'semantics'... I'd like some education on semantics in generalWhich is more of a stretch.... Saws are meant to cut fingers off or guns are meant to cut boards?

I'm thinking what you are talking about is the use of propaganda amongst the conversation of the unwashed masses.

Keith Wilson
03-09-2012, 08:35 AM
...unless you're anti-semantic. :d:d

I can see that Donn's had his coffee this morning.

Mrleft8
03-09-2012, 08:36 AM
culpability?

No.

Paul Pless
03-09-2012, 08:38 AM
Donn :D

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:42 AM
No.

I'm having trouble with that... if the omission was deliberate then I would assign culpability

BrianY
03-09-2012, 08:46 AM
Keith -

You forgot one definition:

Semantics:

Tricks and pranks played by sailors on each other.

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 08:50 AM
Keith -

You forgot one definition:

Semantics:

Tricks and pranks played by sailors on each other.

I guess that would count... 6 fathoms of red chow line anyone?

Mrleft8
03-09-2012, 08:58 AM
If the omission was deliberate you wouldn't need to assign culpability, it would be inherent.

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 09:03 AM
If the omission was deliberate you wouldn't need to assign culpability, it would be inherent.

self-inflicted?

Mrleft8
03-09-2012, 09:17 AM
No.

TomF
03-09-2012, 09:27 AM
Are we talking about table saws, or is this a more ethereal discussion?

Either way, I have no idea what you are trying to get at:DIMO it's a gun thread.

The "semantic discission" is really about whether even dangerous tools are just tools and their use is simply a reflection of the user's intention ... or if it's appropriate to qualify tools in terms of a more specific design function.

Is a 20 gauge shotgun designed to shoot upland birds, or just designed to propel bits of metal in a particular direction? Is a Glock pistol designed to shoot people, or just designed to propel bits of metal in a particular direction? I believe Phillip's point is that either can be used to hunt or for self-defence, and distinctions about the function of the two weapons are only "semantic." That a tool is just a tool, after all - whatever label someone puts on it.

And I believe that such a view is reductive, and inconsistent even with common discussions among firearms fanciers.

Concordia 33
03-09-2012, 09:30 AM
it is just an example that comes to mind... my interest is in the use and misuse of semantics, not table saws. some perceptive fellow will eventually remember that guns were said to be designed to kill people, the other day... it's what got me thinking about semantics (this time). the saw cuts fingers and the same semantical misrepresentation used in the example could, correctly, be said to indicate that saws were meant to cut fingers off... a semantical misrepresentation, depending on what 'some' are predisposed to think.

semantics... any semantics... take saws and guns out of it and ask if the semantical lie/misrepresentation is purposful or accidental

I am hoping not to get on yet another gun discussion... my desired topic is 'semantics'... I'd like some education on semantics in general

Sounds like you are trying to back your way into a gun discussion? Though some guns are designed for self-defense and/or assault (i.e. they are designed and built to kill people), table saws are designed and built to cut wood - the cutting of fingers is incidental to its purpose (unless it is your finger).

SMARTINSEN
03-09-2012, 09:37 AM
Posts 29 and 30, Phillip, YOU'RE BUSTED.:)

Flying Orca
03-09-2012, 09:46 AM
It is often possible to divine the intention of the designer. I'm just sayin'. ;)

TomF
03-09-2012, 10:00 AM
Phillip,

I may have misjudged you. It sure sounds like you want to find a few planks to bring into the next gun thread though.

I've got an axe that I sometimes use to split kindling, and I also have one of those cheese-cutters that use a strand of wire. Now, either of those tools can cut cheese ... and even does it using the same principles of physics. But one does it much more effectively than another. It isn't a semantic difference to point that out.

I also have a rather stout fixed blade knife that I've used with a baton to split kindling, not unlike what I do with the axe. The distinction between the fixed blade knife and the axeis less than that between the chesse-cutter and the axe... but there is still more than a semantic difference, even considering their fitness for the same task (splitting kindling).

It gets tougher when I consider the kukri that I actually mostly use for kindling. While a kukri's mostly used in Nepal as a tool (not unlike a more versatile hatchet, actually), it's best known outside of Nepal as an iconic Gurkha weapon. Arguably a much more effective weapon than a hatchet. Is the distinction between a kukri and an axe, when it comes to being a weapon, only semantic?

I'd argue no. For all that any number of axe designs have storied histories as weapons ... and the one I have would be effective ... it was designed to split wood. You'd tweak the design a fair bit to optimize it for weapon use. And for all that I regularly use my kukri as a tool - and it makes a darned good one - nothing needs to be tweaked to take it into combat. It does a lot of tasks very well, but I've got to admit that the 20th Century iteration I have was designed as a weapon. It is among the least "weaponized" versions of kukri design ... but is closely based on the better versions carried in WWII. It's not a semantic difference to describe my everyday kindling-splitter as a weapon, but my axe as a tool. Despite how I use them.

Among other things, if I somehow landed in an actual killing-the-zombies type combat situation, I'd reach for the kukri before I'd reach for the axe, despite its disadvantage in reach.

ljb5
03-09-2012, 10:03 AM
Phillip's problem has always been that he thinks the truth is something to dance around, and embrace only reluctantly when it has ultimately been forced upon him.

The difference between guns and tablesaws has nothing to do with semantics.

The search for a rhetorical flourish to evade that distinction is, if not dishonest... at best, weasely.

Donn
03-09-2012, 10:08 AM
... at best, weasley.

That's "weasely."

ljb5
03-09-2012, 10:18 AM
That's "weasely."

Thanks. I thought it didn't look right... but when I looked it up on google, all I got was references to Harry Potter.

B_B
03-09-2012, 11:38 AM
It is often possible to divine the intention of the designer. I'm just sayin'. ;)
That would mean there is an intelligent designer, but, more importantly, also an intelligent diviner.

Flying Orca
03-09-2012, 11:44 AM
That would mean there is an intelligent designer, but, more importantly, also an intelligent diviner.

In the case of human artifacts, I'd say both conditions apply, to varying degrees. ;)

Canoeyawl
03-09-2012, 11:46 AM
:d:d

I can see that Donn's had his coffee this morning.

"That's ture..."

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 12:39 PM
Sounds like you are trying to back your way into a gun discussion? Though some guns are designed for self-defense and/or assault (i.e. they are designed and built to kill people), table saws are designed and built to cut wood - the cutting of fingers is incidental to its purpose (unless it is your finger).

No, I’m trying to have a discussion about semantics. Sniping by the terminally biased:


{b}Phillip's problem[/B] has always been that he thinks the truth is something to dance around, and embrace only reluctantly when it has ultimately been forced upon him.


is not my intent, nor is another gun thread. I'm tired of gun threads and politics. It is not possible to seperate semantics from guns and politics but they are not the topic I have in mind

I offered the saw example as just a different example and after re reading it I find no reason therein to think I am comparing guns and saws... except as someone else's semantic diversion...

the topic is still semantics and I'd like to be let out of this gun pigeon hole for a while... it is certainly a double standard from people who rail against profiling

Concordia 33
03-09-2012, 12:42 PM
No, I’m trying to have a discussion about semantics. Sniping by the terminally biased:


is not my intent, nor is another gun thread. I'm tired of gun threads and politics. It is not possible to seperate semantics from guns and politics but they are not the topic I have in mind

I offered the saw example as just a different example and after re reading it I find no reason therein to think I am comparing guns and saws... except as a semantic diversion...

the topic is still semantics and I'd like to be let out of this gun pigeon hole for a while... it is certainly a double standard from people who rail against profiling

Then I guess I don't really understand your thread.

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 12:46 PM
Then I guess I don't really understand your thread.

all manifstations of semantics are on the table... just like the red chow line... I"m interested in the less than ethical sort but am not limited to discussing the jokes/pranks

B_B
03-09-2012, 01:06 PM
all manifstations of semantics are on the table...
OK: when I was at University there was a hot headed, arrogant, egomaniacal twit in one of my History classes. Being a Philosophy major he was very good at wordplay. One day after one of his soliloquies I chimed up "I hate contemporary philosophy - it's just a bunch of semantics and of no real substance." After the tittering died down I felt pretty chuffed.

John of Phoenix
03-09-2012, 01:10 PM
You need another "This is how I think" thread. We're all lost without a map.

Generically, a saw is a "tool", a gun is a "weapon". Easy enough?


If the table saw was designed to cut fingers it would be called a finger saw.

http://thegriffincollection.com/images/018.jpg


As it is, it's a table with a saw sticking out of it, not necessarily designed to cut tables (in spite of the tricky name). <roll eyes>

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgIGjYJhMpg8drFKoYbnpPySjaNv8JI HB0QB_9EGfLED7rl2w_Pw

Curtism
03-09-2012, 01:20 PM
But, John, what about hand saws? :D

John of Phoenix
03-09-2012, 01:30 PM
But, John, what about hand saws? :DExactly! Thanks for making my point! They're kept under lock and key in an armory.

http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/attachments/f11/36282d1327067148t-hand-saws-workshop3.jpg

John of Phoenix
03-09-2012, 01:56 PM
Scroll saws? Band saws? Saber saws? .....YES! Perfect examples. Intended to cut inanimate objects, they are considered relatively benign - almost friendly in fact. Thanks Fred, thanks very much.

(I've quoted it, you may now delete your post.)

Phillip Allen
03-09-2012, 02:31 PM
and then there's 'sawsall'

of course target guns tend to get shot up pretty bad... or good, depending on the the quality of the shooter

B_B
03-09-2012, 03:04 PM
...of course target guns tend to get shot up pretty bad... or good, depending on the the quality of the shooter
See you DID want to make this into a gun thread.

Canoeyawl
03-09-2012, 03:43 PM
It's the old saw all over again.

Joe Dupere
03-09-2012, 04:11 PM
"We few, we happy few, we bandsaw of brothers".

Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, scene III.

Joe, FFPoP