What do we replace religion with?[W:675] (1 Viewer)

[nota bene]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Plenty of people besides me realize that dictionaries do not come up with word definitions nor are dictionaries an authority...

I disagree. I regard the OED as authoritative. It's the alpha and omega of English dictionaries.

Nope. English dictionaries contradict other English dictionaries... No two dictionaries are identical...

If there is disagreement, go to the OED. But can you provide an example of a contraction between dictionaries?

Dictionaries merely standardize spelling and punctuation...

No. This isn't even their primary purpose.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Don't forget theoretical lexicography.


OM

 

[Divine_Wind]

Saying gods do not exist is not an argument. Saying I am not an atheist is not an argument. Statements are not arguments.

Correct. It's an unsubstantiated opinion. Everyone is free to express their opinions without evidence or a supporting "argument". God Bless America!

View attachment 67245493

 

[Divine_Wind]

Then I think we agree that paradoxes are illogical and irrational.

Yes, we can agree. Paradoxes can't exist. Ergo, something is missing in order to make them logical and/or rational.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Anyway,

Religion should be replaced by something that has statements that are supported with actual empirical evidence (for a change).

Great! How do you plan to make that happen? Something along the lines Stalin and Mao used or do you have another plan?

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

No. This isn't even their primary purpose.

Be careful, he knows more about the role of the US Supreme Court than the US Supreme court does.


I'm sure he knows more about the purpose of dictionaries than the publishers of dictionaries do.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, we can agree. Paradoxes can't exist. Ergo, something is missing in order to make them logical and/or rational.

Sometimes, it is because of the difference is how words are used.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

I disagree. I regard the OED as authoritative. It's the alpha and omega of English dictionaries.

Well, at least you're the first person to tell me which dictionary is the authoritative and correct one.

If there is disagreement, go to the OED. But can you provide an example of a contraction between dictionaries?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

Here, MW thinks that "anything that has actual existence" is a fact... A computer is a fact, a bicycle is a fact, a typewriter is a fact... Every single physical thing is a fact... So is every single immaterial thing of which the existence is "actual"... Fact is not synonymous with all those words, but MW seems to think so... This also gets into what 'reality' really is, and how it is as unique as a fingerprint for each individual... MW apparently thinks that reality is instead the same for everybody...

Oxford, on the other hand, seems to think that anything that is known or proven to be true is a fact. So, they contradict MW by asserting that computers/bicycles/typewriters are NOT facts, but rather Math is a fact, Logic is a fact, the rules of any particular board/card game are facts... Oxford also seems to not realize that something can be known without being proven, so are we only speaking of known things, proven things, or both? Something such as God's existence, for example, would fit under Oxford's definition of "fact", since it is something that (at least for me) is known to be true. I can't prove it, but I know it through personal experience. Someone else could look at that definition and assert that God's non-existence is known to them, so that would also be a fact... That creates a paradox.

In the end, both definitions are bad. A better definition for "fact" would be "shorthand predicate accepted by all people involved in a particular conversation". For example, between you and I, "God exists" would be a fact. We both agree on that predicate, and we don't have to argue over it... We can skip that step, thus speeding up our conversation with each other. That's all a fact is, and that's what the purpose of a fact is. It has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect, or "being in line with reality" as "God isn't real" would be a fact between RAMOSS and Quag. So does God exist in reality or not? It doesn't matter... Merriam Webster would argue a paradox on this, according to their definition of fact... So would Oxford... But the definition of fact that I offered (which is how philosophy defines it) avoids that paradox...


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality

Here, these dictionaries agree with each other, but I included this to show the problem with both conflicting definitions of the word fact. They both speak of "the state of things as they actually exist"... The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that this 'actuality' differs from individual to individual similar to how a fingerprint does... Reality is not "the state of things as they actually exist", since that differs for everybody, but rather, reality (the same for everybody) is "one's own personal model of the universe and how it works". This definition is offered by philosophy, specifically the branch of phenomenology.

I'm not just "being obtuse" in my rejection of dictionary definitions as 'authoritative'... There are major issues with them, and they cloud people's understanding of philosophy, logic, religion, science, etc. etc...

Notice how the definitions I have offered aren't in any dictionary? They came from philosophy... Definitions can also come from things such as Logic, Science, Engineering, etc... They never come from an inanimate object such as a dictionary... Dictionaries can't reason...

No. This isn't even their primary purpose.

It is. Dictionaries are a collection of words. Those words get standardized in spelling and pronunciation. I've never appealed to a dictionary to define a word for me... I've looked to see how words are spelled and pronounced, however...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Be careful, he knows more about the role of the US Supreme Court than the US Supreme court does.

Yes, I do.

I'm sure he knows more about the purpose of dictionaries than the publishers of dictionaries do.

Quite plausibly... Idk what particular publishers of dictionaries say the purpose of their dictionaries are...

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

...dictionaries are a collection of words. Those words get standardized in spelling and punctuation. I've never appealed to a dictionary to define a word for me... I've looked to see how words are spelled and pronounced, however...

Hmmm


Oxford English Dictionary:

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings. You’ll still find present-day meanings in the OED, but you’ll also find the history of individual words, and of the language—traced through 3 million quotations, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books....."


https://public.oed.com/about/



But as with your assertion that you know more about the role of the US Supreme Court than the US Supreme Court knows itself and what it publishes on its web page...

...you will doubtless assert that you know more about the purpose of the Oxford English Dictionary than the publishers of the OED do themselves, too.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Yes, I do....

Awesome...

...quite plausibly... Idk what particular publishers of dictionaries say the purpose of their dictionaries are...

See post #2135

 

[Divine_Wind]

Sometimes, it is because of the difference is how words are used.

Text is a very poor form of communication. There's no body language, inflection or other cues normal to human face-to-face discussion.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Hmmm


Oxford English Dictionary:

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings. You’ll still find present-day meanings in the OED, but you’ll also find the history of individual words, and of the language—traced through 3 million quotations, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books....."


https://public.oed.com/about/



But as with your assertion that you know more about the role of the US Supreme Court than the US Supreme Court knows itself and what it publishes on its web page...

...you will doubtless assert that you know more about the purpose of the Oxford English Dictionary than the publishers of the OED do themselves, too.

He's a modern day Humpty Dumpty.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

He's a modern day Humpty Dumpty.

He is the model of a modern major-general
He's information vegetable, animal and mineral...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Hmmm


Oxford English Dictionary:

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings. You’ll still find present-day meanings in the OED, but you’ll also find the history of individual words, and of the language—traced through 3 million quotations, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books....."


https://public.oed.com/about/



But as with your assertion that you know more about the role of the US Supreme Court than the US Supreme Court knows itself and what it publishes on its web page...

...you will doubtless assert that you know more about the purpose of the Oxford English Dictionary than the publishers of the OED do themselves, too.

If you would actually read what you blindly copy/pasted, it states that OED's focus is NOT on present day meanings... That is what "dictionaries of current English" focus on, according to Oxford... Oxford distinguishes themselves from those dictionaries...


This also evidences my point that dictionaries contradict each other, which is why I ask "which one is the authoritative one"...


I really do think there is a huge pandemic concerning the ability to think for oneself (for oneself to formulate their own arguments instead of appealing to someone else's arguments)... It's something I've become much more passionate about as of late...

 

[Angel]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

ON DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

The dictionary or lexical definition is a report or record of a meaning that already exists outside the dictionary.

Dictionary meanings can be true or false.

That means that the authority for the meaning of a word exists outside the dictionary.​

Lexical definition

The lexical definition of a term, also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage. As its other name implies, this is the sort of definition one is likely to find in the dictionary. A lexical definition is usually the type expected from a request for definition, and it is generally expected that such a definition will be stated as simply as possible in order to convey information to the widest audience.

Note that a lexical definition is descriptive, reporting actual usage within speakers of a language, and changes with changing usage of the term, rather than prescriptive, which would be to stick with a version regarded as "correct", regardless of drift in accepted meaning. They tend to be inclusive, attempting to capture everything the term is used to refer to, and as such are often too vague for many purposes.

Lexical definitions are either true or false. If the definition is the same as the actual use of the word then it is true, otherwise it is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_definition

A lexical definition reports a meaning the definiendum already has. The report may be correct, or incorrect -- and therefore it is clear that a lexical definition may be either true or false.

The definiendum of a lexical definition does have a prior and independent meaning, and therefore its definition may be true or false, depending on whether that meaning is reported correctly or incorrectly.

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/o...book/MLL_Copi_13e_Ch03/0136141390_Ch03_04.pdf

A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of technical terms of logic are lexical because they are intended to inform you about the way in which these terms are actually employed within the discipline of logic.

Definition and Meaning

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

If you would actually read what you blindly copy/pasted, it states that OED's focus is NOT on present day meanings... That is what "dictionaries of current English" focus on, according to Oxford... Oxford distinguishes themselves from those dictionaries...

SMH


As you say...most English Dictionaries focus on present day meanings.
Meanings = DEFINITIONS

The OED says it ALSO lists present day meanings but goes a bit further.

QED: Dictionaries' purpose to to give meanings.

It is true you can also use them to check the spelling of a word but in the days off automatic spellchecker, I would guess this use is falling away somewhat.



When you're in a hole...stop digging. You're making a fool of yourself.

Learn to accept when you're wrong.

But you don't you dogmatically cling to your opinions and would rather state the rest of the world is wrong.

 

[Angel]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

smh


as you (i suspect accidentally) say...the oed states that most english dictionaries focus on present day meanings.
Meanings = definitions

the oed says it also lists present day meaning but goes a bit further.

Qed: Dictionaries' purpose to to give meanings.

It is true you can also use them to check the spelling of a word but in the days off automatic spellchecker, i would guess this use is falling away somewhat.

please see #2141
thank you

 

[gfm7175]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

SMH

Agreed...

As you say...most English Dictionaries focus on present day meanings.
Meanings = DEFINITIONS

I didn't say that Rich... Oxford did... Again, reading comprehension goes a long way...

The OED says it ALSO lists present day meanings but goes a bit further.

Good job in catching the language that you completely missed the first time around...

Yes, Oxford claims that they also list present day meanings, but those meanings aren't their primary focus, according to them...

QED: Dictionaries' purpose to to give meanings.

???

It is true you can also use them to check the spelling of a word but in the days off automatic spellchecker, I would guess this use is falling away somewhat.

Automatic spellchecker can be quite problematic sometimes... It still requires manual review for accuracy...

When you're in a hole...stop digging. You're making a fool of yourself.

Learn to accept when you're wrong.

Inversion Fallacy.

But you don't you dogmatically cling to your opinions and would rather state the rest of the world is wrong.

Argumentum Ad Populum Fallacy dismissed on sight...

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

I didn't say that Rich... Oxford did...

So you disagree with the OED when it says that most English dictionaries focus on present day meaning.

...Yes, Oxford claims that they also list present day meanings, but those meanings aren't their primary focus, according to them...

Oh claims now is it ?

Still not accepting that the OED gives meanings/definitions...or that most English dictionaries focus on present day meaning


They says they give present day meanings but go further and explain the origin of the word.

According to you, dictionaries are primarily for spell checking and pronunciation.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

please see #2141

So dictionaries DO give out meanings of words ?

 

[Angel]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

So dictionaries DO give out meanings of words ?

Dictionaries "give out" reports on the meanings and usage of words. Dictionaries do not give meanings to words. Those meanings come from other sources.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

He's a modern day Humpty Dumpty.

He is the model of a modern major-general
He's information vegetable, animal and mineral...

Thanks for proving that those of the atheist faith are no better than those of the theist faith.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Thanks for proving that those of the atheist faith are no better than those of the theist faith.

Our taste in operetta isn't superior ?

I always thought The Pirates of Penzance was one of G&S better works.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Our taste in operetta isn't superior ?

I always thought The Pirates of Penzance was one of G&S better works.

G&S provided a lot of good music but I'm more of a rock opera guy like The Who's Tommy and Quadrophenia, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds and Rick Wakeman's Journey to the Center of the Earth.