With so much hullabaloo over the 'F' word, I'm back to say I really enjoyed reading reactions to my post. Thanks to all for taking the time to think about these ideas with me. PZ suggests I need a lesson in Framing and on that topic, I've got some thoughts here, here, here, here, and here. And if I'm still having trouble, I've got Chris, but will add I have the utmost respect for PZ and admire his style.
What tickles me most is the way so many folks jumped too quickly to conclusions over what I do and do not believe based solely on twisting and turning my words to suit their purpose. The thread took on a life of its own and became very much a debate over semantics. Who knew a Monday could be so much fun!
PZ wrote:
'Without even saying a word about her position on the issue, it's quite clear where she stands. While giving us that great big clue, though, she also fails to explain anything about how religion and science are supposed to interact..'
Actually, no. My position was not included in that post, but there is more on that here where I do provide some hints. I feel faith has no place in science - the very reason I have not revealed where I stand. Still, it's quite obvious these concepts do interact as fair game on Science Blogs and I wont deny I'm having a great time engaging in this forum.
Throughout day I'll post on recurring themes from Monday's comments, but in the meantime, I have to walk to work. Check back very soon for more on another 'F' word: Fundamentalism
[And to those looking for a good fight in the comments, you have the floor.. err.. forum. All I politely request is that you limit personal attacks to me and not other commenters and please refrain from using a third 'F' word this time.]
- Log in to post comments
Thank you for refreshing my memory with the "Framing" posts that you wrote. Religion is so funny, isn't it? People got tied up language and unfortunately so many missed your excellent points entirely.
Right on Sheril!
Sheril, you write:
This may be how you see the discussion of your previous post, but I just cannot agree. Mainly, I saw people deriving your meaning, quite simply, from what you actually wrote (or, in some cases, failed to write).
For instance, when you denied saying that atheism -- perhaps, "militant" or outspoken atheism -- was a subset of fundamentalism, many readers simply replied by showing where and when you actually did say that. Their main response was your own words.
How is this a mater of semantics, or "framing," or jumping to conclusions?
At other times, readers -- including PZ -- noted that many of your pronouncements led to untenable conclusions. Take your call for a universal respect of others' beliefs. It is clear that if "respect" means anything, then "universal respect" is self-contradictory. It's a nice phrase that has no cash value, in or out of science.
But again, how is this interpretation an example of jumping to conclusions or -- dismissively put -- a "argument about semantics." All I see are people tackling the implications of what you actually wrote.
Ultimately, you could have responded by saying that, yes, you presented your ideas unclearly, inelegantly, or incompletely. Instead, you imply that the problems were all with your readers, with their irrational inferences and penny-ante concerns. That is not a good start.
Well, if "semantics" is anything like "meaning," then perhaps the real problems was that your readers took that original post seriously at all.
Peter:
Semantics is not 'anything like "meaning"'. Semantics is to meaning as chewing is to apples.
For a definition of "fundamentalism" please see the other threads.
-J
"Semantics (Greek sÄmantikos, giving signs, significant, symptomatic, from sÄma (Ïá¿Î¼Î±), sign) refers to the aspects of meaning that are expressed in a language, code, or other form of representation of information. Semantics is contrasted with two other aspects of meaningful expression, namely, syntax, the construction of complex signs from simpler signs, and pragmatics, the practical use of signs by agents or communities of interpretation in particular circumstances and contexts.[1] By the usual convention that calls a study or a theory by the name of its subject matter, semantics may also denote the theoretical study of meaning in systems of signs."
You would appear to be mistaken, John the Gnerphk.