 Poll
|
| Question: | Do you weyken this word will be useful to you?
| I don't see any need to invent new words. "Belief" is completely adequate. | |    0 (0%) |
| I don't see why this is important. | | 0 (0%) |
| While I see the point, I'm not sure that I would use "weyken". | | 0 (0%) |
| Whatever. | | 0 (0%) |
| I don't see why this is necessary, but will use "weyken" when it is appropriate. | | 0 (0%) |
| Weyken may be a useful contribution to effective communications. | | 1 (50%) |
| Weyken may be a useful contribution to effective communications. | | 1 (50%) |
| | | | Total Votes: 2 | |
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word? (Read 1401 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« on: 2005-11-23 18:15:57 » |
 |
The same poll has been established on other websites (e.g. http://www.the-brights.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=4072&st=), and I encourage Virians to do the same elsewhere. If you do, please make a post to this thread with the cross-reference.
The meaning of belief has, in the last century, apparently changed from meaning "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses." --Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), to being more of a portmateau word, including those things derived through "revelation" on an equal basis with those resulting from evidence and cogitation.
I suggest that this results in difficulties when discussing the need to address issues on a reasonable and rational basis, and even when trying to explain that it is invalid to offer a choice between different "beliefs held to be true" (as not infrequently evidenced by many proponents of "Intelligent Design").
A new word has been proposed to deal with this issue, "Weyken." Weyken is defined and discussed (in an critically rationalist atheist environment at CoV Wiki and more formally defined at wiktionary.
If you think that the word would be useful to you, please make use of it, spread the word, and possibly post citations in the discussion page at wiktionary.
Many thanks
Hermit
Appended are the questions as currently formulated.
Do you weyken this word will be useful to you?I don't see any need to invent new words. "Belief" is completely adequate.
I don't see why this is important.
While I see the point, I'm not sure that I would use "weyken"
Whatever.
I don't see why this is necessary, but will use "weyken" when it is appropriate.
Weyken may be a useful contribution to effective communications.
Weyken is going to make a huge difference in my life. I anticipate using it everyday.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
 |
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #1 on: 2005-11-23 22:15:06 » |
|
The Memetics List
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #2 on: 2005-11-25 14:43:37 » |
|
Cross post from the "Brights": http://www.the-brights.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4072&st=15&p=61217&#entry61217
[Suggestion]
“It could, I think, be reasonably argued that adopting jargon and/or habits which stem only from a hatred of religion might reasonably lead people to assume that hatred of religion is what defines brights as a group, no?”
[Hermit Responds]
Hmm. How to put this?
One of my grandfathers was a defrocked Jesuit. He used to assert (and could support) that if you ever debated with a Jesuit you would lose. The reason was, that in order to persuade a Jesuit to debate with you, you had to consent to his terminology. Once you had done that, the debate was effectively framed in terms which the Jesuits had perfected over the course of centuries. Effectively you were debating not an individual but an unbeatable collective made up of extremely bright minds who had predetermined the outcome by loading the verbal dice.
So when I initiated “weyken”, it was not so much through a revulsion towards religion (although I grant that that is present in my personality, I don't generally allow it to dominate my thinking. Religion was always more of a "so what" background issue for me; at least until I moved to the Religious Republic of America), nor even a mere penchant for pedantry (although that too might be an aspect of my character), but an issue which I have repeatedly experienced in the didactic environment; where the use of "tainted terms" (and much of the taint in the US is deliberate as Webster had an acknowledged religious agenda in redefining English) leads not only to much confusion, but also to huge difficulties in explaining why these differences should be seen as important and worth maintaining.
Consider the religious as having been wickedly competent memeticists long before memetics or its terminology was invented. And the Brights are arguably coming up from behind on a stern chase, our “spiritual ancestors” probably being the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, whom I remind you, were thoroughly deconstructed (in a very physical sense) by the early Christians. Given that the later day Christians are the “spiritual successors” of the victors in that clash, I suggest we should not spike our bow chasers before the first shot is even fired. In my opinion, it is not just permissible to change the rules where the game is slanted, it is foolish not to. The religious have been successfully "adjusting" the playing field for somewhere in excess of 1600 years; if we consent to playing on it exclusively by their rules, they have no need to fix the individual games in order to consign us to the same oblivion as have ensconced a myriad of our predecessors.
Consider only one example, “I believe in intelligent design, you believe in evolution. Please explain why your belief is more important than mine?” All the discussion of the qualitative difference between “faith” (from fides – to place trust in someone, i.e. To accept the word of somebody else – in this case “God” as invented, translated, interpreted and otherwise spun) to accepting the likely truth value of a well supported scientific theory will get you nowhere because, to the layman, these are both matters of belief (however it is spelled). We, the brights and our memetic ancestors, have made this morass possible by consenting to the “unimportant” encroachment of religious interpretation of language on our speech, to the point where the terms we use “fix” the field against us. We cannot score because we have no goal. Our ancestors are not here to fix the issue or shoulder the blame. Which is why, if we want to be persuasive in our lifetimes, rather than leaving the issue to our descendants, perhaps should at least start to attempt to create an environment where rational persuasion just might be possible.
Kind regards
Hermit
PS I wonder if those arguing against the idea of a new word might originate from the European side of the Atlantic, and have perhaps not experienced the full awesomeness of the “Religious Wrong” in the Americas for themselves. I do know that I certainly didn't even think about anything like this until I'd hit my head against that bulwark for a fair number of years. Comments anyone?
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #3 on: 2005-11-25 18:25:32 » |
|
Makes sense. The Brights thought long and hard about the name and had much the same objective; reframing the issue.
I liked a suggestion that I saw somewhere (maybe Skeptic's Newsletter?) that the the word 'faith' be replaced with 'superstition'.
It can be salutory eg "Today the president approved 25 million dollars in funding for superstition based agencies to educate teenagers about AIDS."
When you put it THAT way...
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #4 on: 2005-11-25 22:28:55 » |
|
i am sorry, but what's the point of all this?
maybe i am not much of a romantic, but at the end of the day, i'd like to see what's done IN REAL TERMS. havent we wasted enough time in cov with new terminology and definitions? where exactly did *that* get us?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #5 on: 2005-11-27 02:54:33 » |
|
Dear Mermaid,
Thank you for your interest.
As previously mentioned, many discussions held with other Virians seemed to suggest a need for a new word, and, not realizing that a point was required, I posted this thread imagining that it might be of interest to some. I also hadn't realized that your permission was required, that I was wasting your precious time, or even that failing to reply to your cheerful shouting would gain me a "This person should be ignored" rating from you.
Please accept my apologies, and try to live up to your rating of me. In fact, why not try to avoid wasting time when you can be making points in real terms (and invalid capitalization if you like) on threads which upset you. And you do, I'm sure it will make everyone else as happy as a whole salad full of clams. I'll stop posting on this topic in order to make your life complete.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?
« Reply #6 on: 2005-11-27 08:41:42 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2005-11-27 02:54:33
Dear Mermaid,
Thank you for your interest.
As previously mentioned, many discussions held with other Virians seemed to suggest a need for a new word, and, not realizing that a point was required, I posted this thread imagining that it might be of interest to some. I also hadn't realized that your permission was required, that I was wasting your precious time, or even that failing to reply to your cheerful shouting would gain me a "This person should be ignored" rating from you.
Please accept my apologies, and try to live up to your rating of me. In fact, why not try to avoid wasting time when you can be making points in real terms (and invalid capitalization if you like) on threads which upset you. And you do, I'm sure it will make everyone else as happy as a whole salad full of clams. I'll stop posting on this topic in order to make your life complete.
Regards
Hermit
|
ok..back to the topic.
there is no need for a new word. if you have a suggestion for any new goals for cov, maybe there will be an audience for it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
