I was given a proposal for a new word by a fellow named Francois Choquette. It's a tough game trying to get a new coinage accepted, and I doubt that it'll take off…but it's actually a useful word to replace that abomination, "spirituality". So I'll toss Choquette's description out there for the readership to judge.
Scientility
Describes the sensation that a scientist or amateur of science experiences when he/she observes an amazing phenomenon, for which his/her qualifications or knowledge makes them experience it a greater degree of appreciaton and joy than people without that knowledge.
Rationale:
We need a new word is that freethinkers can use instead of having to use the word "Spirituality" to describe this enhanced experience. Some of us cringe when having to use the word "spirituality", when describing our feelings when describing our connection to nature.Carl Sagan wrote, when speaking of the relationship between science and spirituality: "In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. They very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos....Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Mr. Sagan may have prefered to use a different word, if it existed. The current use of the word Spirituality implies "Spirits", a ghost, an unquantifiable being, supposedly present everywhere that affects human bodies yet, that has never been detected and is unfalsifable. It is an unscientific word and we need a new word to replace it.
Who would need this word:
Any person experiencing human emotion beyond that can be described by the data:
An astronomer will experience the night sky differently than an astrologer.
An automotive engineer will experience a car show more deeply than say, a car washer.
A biologist netting an new undiscovered fish will feel differently than say a fisherman, who may lack the proper interest in this rare find.Richard Feynman said it best, but didn't have the word scientility to describe it:
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."Formal definition:
scien•ti•li•ty [scien-tee-lee-tee]
-noun, plural -ties.
1.the quality or fact of being sciential.
2.knowledge-based experience, improved by real, proven, scientific data. Can be euphoric in nature, like a eureka moment.Use of Scientility in a sentence:
- Scientiliy can happen while appreciating the results of a scientific experiment.
- Observing a rocket launch can be a scientil experience or a patriotic experience.
- A farmer will have a scientual appreciation of a new genetically engineered seed.
- The class was scientilized by the new science teacher.
- Today I feel scientual.
- Have a scientil day!--Related forms
non•scien•ti•li•ty, noun
su•per•scien•ti•li•ty, noun
un•scien•ti•li•ty, noun
- Log in to post comments
Looks/sounds too much like 'senility'.
I fully endorse this sentiment, but I think "scientility" and "scientil" are very unwieldy words. I do think we're lacking a word to describe those eureka moments, I'm just not sure this is the right word.
How on earth can he cite Carl Sagan without mentioning "numinous"?
A sense of the numinous. Numinousity, maybe.
I used to edit Wiktionary regularly, we would have people coming up with goofy new words all the time.
Scientility reminds me of senility.
I think "awe" (and its variants) is better.
It sounds like a combination of "science" and "utility," as if it were all about practical science. Since it's supposed to describe something "like spirituality," I can hardly think of a worse sounding word.
I don't mind the word "spirituality" anyway, although that might have a lot to do with philosophy and the sense that words only mean what they mean, hence the scientific notion of what "spirituality is" ought to take over the meaning of the term "spiritual."
Anyhow, we can always speak of "amazement" and "wonder" without saying "spiritual" if we wish, and we don't need a word that smacks so much of "scientism."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
So that's a big no on 'nerdgasm', then?
Although I see on looking it up that the word "numinous" originally connoted the divine and/or supernatural.
Bah.
I too think it is too much like senility.
I don't find it very scientittilating.
What's up with the pronunciation [scien-tee-lee-tee]? Is this guy French? All those ee's are wrong, and should be short I's.
I have to admit that on reading "scientility" my first thought was of Anthony Flew. To me it would do better to denote a once-rigorous scientist who has been sucked in by woo in his/her dotage.
How about "sciensuality?"
I think Kant has the word it what they want to describe with scientility: the sublime. His distinction between understanding and comprehending in discussing the sublime should help explain "human emotion beyond that can be described by the data."
Scijizz?
While I'm here, how about using the word PHONEDRUNK to describe the act of driving while phoning?
I call it idolatry.
I got as far as, "Mr. Sagan may have prefered to use a different word, if it existed."
It does exist and he did use it. Numinous. I know the word primarily from Sagan's use of it, though I've heard it used many times to describe exactly what scientility seems to mean.
The religious have a fine tradition of appropriating perfectly good words for nefarious purposes. “Faith” and “love” are two examples. Both enjoy rich traditions of non-woo definitions that have been hijacked.
I say we fight fire with fire. “Spirit” and “spiritual (along with “soul,” ”soulful,” and the like) already have secondary non-woo meanings that are perfect for this sense. Let’s do what we can to make them the primary meanings.
Oh — and, yes. “Scientility” is too senilely silly to deserve further consideration. And it’ll confuse L. Ron Hubbard’s thetan, as well — not that that’s hard to do….
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
This reminds me of the great short item in The Onion recently, "Priest Religious, But Not Really Spiritual"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/priest-religious-but-not-really-spirit…
I thought it was going to be a cross between Scientific and Senility.
Like, why's James Watson spouting off like a racist moron all of a sudden?
He appears to have succumbed to scientility.
Scijizz? Scijism?
While I'm here, how about using the word PHONEDRUNK to describe the act of driving while phoning?
I'm agreeing with a lot of the comments so far, and was for the word originally, but I think the criticism so far is enough to turn me.
Owlmirror, I think we should take the word numinous and make it ours, and that was the impression I got when reading Sagan's book Contact (and maybe I heard/read him mention it elsewhere too, I don't recall).
I think that it is an obscure enough word that it can be effectively branded to describe the notion we are discussing. Though awe is a good word too.
I too absolutely loathe the word spirituality, too much connotation in supernatural. I actually have the same problem with the word mystic, which Sam Harris is (or was?) fond of using.
@Brownian I like nerdgasm.
This one sounds like a cross between scientology and senility. I like the theory but not the word.
revjimbob @ 1 - senility - my thought too.
Sounds like a combination of Scientology and senility, with a touch of scintilla thrown in, so no.
I like reverence and awe, but they have a little too much 'I'm only a tiny mote and the universe is so grand' and not quite enough 'this primate brain just figured it out, ha ha ha!'.
Numinous is nice but it's a little passive.
If only we had compound words like in German, we could make up something like the Emotion of Triumphal Understanding, which is more like it.
Yeah, this word is all wrong, badly so in fact. That it is derived from the root word science strongly implies/connotes sterile methodology, no matter how profound the results from the purely rational method.
What I'm saying is the new word
must associate primarily with emotion.
Since this thread is likely to fill up with posters' experiences of 'scientility', I'll start with saying that July prairie thunderstorms have that effect on me (especially if one is watching one approach over fields of canola). When I was younger, these would have been more 'numinous', but as I've since taken a few meteorology courses and have an inkling of why an anvilhead forms, I think it now qualifies as 'scientility'.
Right sentiment. Wrong word.
Whoever coined it knows neither Greek nor Latin, and thus is Not A Gentleman*.
We can't have people wandering around will-he, nill-he coining new words, it would be chaos. I shall write to my MP as soon as this pesky hung parliament is sorted out. It's this sort of behaviour what can cause unrest.
Louis
*Ladies have far too many things to do than coin neologisms. A Lady should be doing things like lace work and embroidery, knitting, looking after children, cooking, Women's Things, full contact martial arts, flower arranging, all comers bat buggery, cheese craft, earlobe nibbling, wardrobe perfumery, fainting, race horse nobbling and spang**.
**I refuse to define "spang", you all know what it means.
Louis, I thought that “spang” is what a star does to a banner…
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
You know that about your MPs? Wow. Those tabloids really have no boundaries when it comes to divulging personal details about elected officials.
Meh. I'd prefer a word that's not horrifically cumbersome.
You're welcome. ;)
Sounds a lot like the sentiment behind the Dawkins book "Unweaving the Rainbow." And I have to agree with those that think it sounds far too much like "senility."
Yeah, no. I'm not a big fan of making up words to say things we already have perfectly good words for. I vote for "awe".
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-
What's wrong with "Euphoric"?
MikeM
@God
Well I call you an idol, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then won't we?
"They gazed upon the cliff with a feeling of awe"
"Awwwwwww"
"That's Awe. A-W-E."
"Ooooooh."
@Brownian, OM #30:
Since my MP is of the lady persuasion, I'm going to hope for her sake that she isn't hung. Well, unless she's into that sort of thing, it's not my place to judge. Live and let live I say. However, since she's also a conservative I'm going out on a limb and saying she's probably not that kind of....waaaaaaaaaaait a minute. Forget I said anything, she's probably putting on some goody-goody act and underneath is something of a minx.
Oh crap, I'm never going to be able to petition her for anything ever again.
__________________
@ Ben Goren #29,
No that's "spangle". "Spongle" is something else entirely. "Spang", fortunately is just...well...
Louis
Definitely one of the scientisilliest suggestions I've read on this blog. Scientology and senility indeed come to mind and I completely agree with Cody, we have every right co-opt numinous. Exclude the sprititual definitions and accept the unexplainable elation. After all, numinous is good enough for Sagan, Hitchens (and I think Dawkins) it's certainly good enough for me. It speaks of an unexplainable awe, and inspiration taken from observing nature.
Your artist friend is saying he doesn't understand the scientific intricacies of the flower but still sees incredible beauty. This is his numinous. You are saying I know everything about the flower and don't need the numinous. But I believe there are things even you can't disect scientifically that you find awe inspiring, and that would be your numinous.
Agh! Horrible, horrible word. And do we really need a new word? As far as I know, no one has ever proposed the word "artility" to describe the state of being deeply touched by a piece of art.
Then again, I have no qualms with the word "spirituality." In my opinion, to say that it's not adequate because it's associated with spirits is to fall in an etymological fallacy.
"Use of 'scientility' in a sentence" followed by uses of "scientual"? Shouldn't the second be "scientile" or the first "scientuousness"? Or perhaps a small amount of this characteristic would be called a "scientilla", an event possessing the characteristic would be called "scientillating".
Which reminds me of one of my favorite high-brow versions of nursery rhymes:
Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minific;
Fain I would fathom your nature specific.
Exaltedly set in the ether capacious,
A reasonable facsimile of a gem carbonaceous.
Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minific;
Fain I would fathom your nature specific.
Personally, I dislike it. Adding any spiritual aspect to science is a mistake. I definitely see this as a step backwards.
Why not just joy? Fascination? These are far more real than spirituality.
Not only is the word all wrong so is the idea behind it. There is nothing wrong with the use of 'spirituality' as defined as the "sum total of personal emotional reactions to the universe, existance, or one's life itself." The human spirit is exactly just that an emotional reaction. It portends nothing to do with supernaturalities, and any such interpretation is just that - a bad/false interpretation of human reactions. Going off and creating a different lexicography for what people have been experiencing for the last seventy-five thousand years (if not more) yet poorly interpreted just sets apart what an atheist might experience from someone who is religious. When, in fact, they are the same thing, despite the religious interpretations.
I prefer "that hot dog! feeling".
You know, "One with everything"?
I'm sure that's what Carl meant...
I agree with lijdare.
Spirituality---whatever it is---has been part of human experience forever.... well, for about 6000 years or so (just kidding!).
Personally, I feel all scientological when I read a good mathematics proof.
how about scientacious? A combination of science and bodacious :)
Meh.
It's just go with "realistic."
Compare for yourself:
"I had a highly spiritual experience last night."
"I'm a very spiritual person."
vs
"I had a highly realistic experience last night."
"I'm a very realistic person."
Transcendent. Trancsendence. That which surpases mere appearance.
Aside from the issues others have pointed out, I think it's a mistake to think that you can improve communications with the general public by inventing new words they haven't heard yet. Words like "awe," "wonder," "joy," "humility," etc. seem to do the job just fine.
See, PZ? This is why they call it, “herding giant, cruel, vicious squids with monstrous beaks and venomous razor-edged tentacles.”
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
To join the choir, what a horrible word to describe something that is captured by existing words, including "wonder," "reverence" and "awe." Plus Dawkins is really eloquent on how religious wonder is really similar to (or even identical to) scientific wonder. Making an ugly new word to describe something familiar to everyone is just feeding into those theists who busily proclaim that "reverence" requires belief in a personal god. (I hear this all the time in Boy Scouts and it's total BS.)
When I started homeschooling I read this great article about how the ultimate purpose of education is pleasure. It really shaped a lot of how our family thinks and talks about education and has led me to tell all the summer nature camp kids I see that "learning is the most pleasurable thing people ever do, and if it's not pleasurable, someone's doing it wrong." Makes the kids titter but then pay more attention for the rest of the week.
I don't like scientility much either, but then I hated 'meme' when Dawkins first invented it, so who am I to judge? If it's supposed to replaced spirituality I would have thought it would be "scientuality" which has the benefit of not sounding like senility at least.
Numinous is a beautiful word but numinousness, numinosity etc are not.
It's difficult speaking a language so pervaded by ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night.
Does the phrase, "The class was scientilized by the new science teacher," sound as dirty and wrong to you guys as it does to me?
The "proper interest"? Whatever that is.
So...
Vincent Ferrini (1913-2007) was poet laureate of Gloucester, Mass. Here's one from his Know Fish:
Yes, definitely have to agree with the "no yuck bad word" camp of comments above. With the large vocabulary of English, there are plenty of words that can be used in place of spirituality.
I would also disagree that spirit / spiritual / spirituality imply anything theistic. Spiritual is a way of describing an experience beyond or higher than the mundane.
Epiphanic? Epiphanous? Let's take it back from the Christians.
I don't like the new word.
Amazement and awe are good enough.
I prefer the use of "nerdgasm." The element of humor helps counter what many will perceive as a bit of elitism in the sentiment (that misperception is itself a fight for another day. Baby steps!)
A friend tore me a new one when we saw a rainbow on a hike and I expressed this same sentiment, that I wanted to share my knowledge so she could enjoy the rainbow in even more ways. I don't know that I ever effectively conveyed the idea (we've had similar conversations several times since, and I've failed each time).
A related concept is "fractal enjoyment." Just as many of our favorite whipping boys (creationists, climate change deniers, etc.) are fractally wrong (you debunk one argument, and find it was based on several other ideas that are also wrong, and so on) knowledge can often lead to fractal enjoyment. Running with my rainbow example, I see and enjoy the beautiful rainbow. I then think about the reflection and diffraction of light in the water droplets that causes the phenomenon... about how variations in droplet size, the depth of the water column, and cover behind me lead to variations in the brightness of the rainbow... then I think about the wave particle duality of light, how each color is composed of photons with their different energies and hence wavelengths, etc. etc.
Anyone who has spent an afternoon random walking through Wikipedia has experienced "fractal enjoyment." Anyone with expertise in a topic, allowing them to understand it more deeply than others, has experienced "nerdgasm."
Might I suggest sciorgasm?
i think that "awe" works fine in this context.
if you want an "-ity" word, how about "naturality" or "reality"?
i get such a feeling of deep reality when i look at the stars on a dark, clear night!
and yeah, scientility looks just like "senility", and sounds funny.
blech, patooie, terrible word. Not poetitious enough.
"Scientility" sounds too much like a portmanteau word for describing senile scientists, or perhaps senile scientologists (which would admittedly be rather redundant)... or perhaps scientific futility. Not really a lot of good associations there.
I never saw the word "spirituality" as being unscientific just because of the word "spirit" -- I always chose to intend (if asked) some combination of definitions #3 (temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated), #5 (the activating or essential principle influencing a person), and possibly smidgens of a few others (there are a lot of them).
"Spirituality", it seems to me, relates to one's feeling of interconnectedness with a larger network -- one's ancestors and descendants, other life forms in the ecosystem, people on the internet, carbon atoms in the sun, and so on. If a better word is needed, how about extending intertwingularity to apply to human relations? Or scinterwinity, if you want something with "sci-" in it?
Playing around with Google Translate from English to Greek: syndesophy? (love of connections/links) syndeskepsis? (connection-thinking) Someone who knows Greek or Latin could probably do a lot better.
"Not poetitious enough"
No, I find it a most uncromulent word.
The proper word is shpadoinkle.
@63
syndesophy, that's a very nice word.
This will probably be even more poorly received than 'brights'.
Ugly Ugly word.
I always refer to it as "the transcendent" in casual conversation and think it works very well.
It's a better idea than "bright", but... :-/
As Owlmirror said: Latin numen = "deity", with connotations of "impersonal deity". (It's even grammatically neutral.)
You do. You just spell them with spaces and wait for readers to trip over them.
Doesn't work in German either, because you can't drag adjectives into the mix.
*giggle*
...erm... it's an adjective. You're using it as a noun here. The noun, see above, is numen (and I haven't seen it used in English).
Wonderful. I just have to take issue with the ether. :-)
...but that u would come out of nowhere, etymologically speaking. The of spiritus is real; there's none in scientia.
Very good point(s).
There's just no hope of translating that into any other language.
That would be syndesmatophilia, I think... I'm certain about the philia part, and, well, words with that ending tend to be associated with something else.
I have no idea why it's philosophia rather than sophiophilia. Greek has a couple of bizarre quirks that way.
Argh. The u of spiritus is real; there's none in scientia, and no underlining was intended either. Typo in my HTML.
Does this experience really require its own word? Certainly everyone has felt a certain ecstacy when they approach something awesome with that special, cultivated appreciation. I guess the problem I have with "scientility" is that the experience isn't much different from, say, a scholar of textual criticism reading a particularly brilliant line from Nietzsche, or a historian finally grasping at full the sweep of an epoch. These kind of rapturous experiences aren't unique to science, which is why "scientility" doesn't fully deserve to be a word.
yep. word looks too much like senility. Doesn't flow well, either.
I vote for something based on a verb for something like 'think' or 'learn' or 'see'... and then tie it back into something classic and solid, like cogito ergo sum, or something.
Cogito - Cognitive - Cog.ni.tu.al - Cog.ni.tu.al.ity
or
вижу - Vizhu - Vi.zhi.tual - Vi.zhi.tu.al.ity
or
考え - Kangae - Kan.ga.e.tual - Kan.ga.e.tu.al.ity
I don't really care for it, but I didn't care for "walk-off" home run either and that caught on.
My two cents:
I think that words like 'connectedness' or 'union' are quite adequate to describe the sense of the numinous in most cases.
I must also commend what had to be Darwin's favorite adjectives when contemplating nature: 'wondrous' and 'wonderful.'
So, take this one out for a test spin:
"To look at the stars today, and to know that every atom in my eye was cooked up in some long-dead star in the past, is to experience a wondrous connection to the Universe."
Cientilidad, cintifidualidad, cientismo, cientifidualidad...
Sorry i can find a way to render it in spanish... sounds awfulll
I like "wonder." We would then be "wonderful" instead of "spiritual."
Reminds me of the time a friend asked me, in the middle of a debate on religion, how I would define the word "spiritual", and the answer popped into my head and out of my mouth: "Self-absorbed".
Seriously, this is a non-issue. The word spirit means a lot more than just the superstitious, fictional thing. (The French words for "mind" and "spirit" are the same: "esprit".)
As used by the non-religious, the word "spiritual" and its variations merely indicate transcendence. As another poster mentioned, "awe" and its synonyms evoke the same idea. Spiritual experiences are just powerful experiences (usually with positive connotations).
Let's just avoid using it ourselves, to avoid confusing others about what we believe (and don't believe.)
And "scientility" does suggest a bad neurological condition affecting aging scientists.
It does look too much like "Senility" - but is that a bad thing?
Instead of a word that invokes feelings of awe and wonder, we would have a perfectly good description of a scientist who is well past his prime and talking about things that he no longer has any clue about.
This would be a perfect word to describe John A. Davison, and others who have neglected their CV while decrying real science. And who may have gone a bit around the twist in their final decades.
Call them Scienile!
Janet Holmes:
No, you were right the first time:
Dawkins' brilliant concept notwithstanding, "meme" is a truly awful word. It doesn't roll off the tongue so much as stumble.
And, unlike every other one-syllable word, it doesn't rhyme with anything. At all. (Except maybe "me, myself and I".)
I was watching a well run experiment the other day of a sample of cast iron in liquid nitrogen. At a certain temperature the boiling of the liquid nitrogen almost ceases completely as the temperature iron sample approaches that of liquid nitrogen. All of a sudden the boiling reaction increases dramatically and then as the iron finally cools it ceases. The is due to the Leidenfrost Effect. I was also plotting the temperature at the core of the iron sample vs time. I got two nice clean curves that have an abrupt knee at the transition. Both curves following Newton's Law of Cooling.
It was a scientiliscious moment.
-DU-
Ooh ooh--
I got it:
Cranial clusterbomb.
As in, Professor Jenkins, your cogent explanation of the structure of the DNA molecule just cranially clusterbombed me; thanks, dude.
No?
Well, it still beats "scientility".
Will von wizzlepig @72
Don't know about the other suggestions but the connotation of
would be more like 'a sense of choice or decision'.
Ok, I'll be the voice in the wilderness that asks again, PZ, why you continue to put punctuation outside quotes like "this", instead of the standard usage, like "this."
It's quite jarring to those of us who edit for a living, and detracts from the message.
Instead of "scientil" which sounds weird, may I suggest "scientilic"?
"Scientility" is ugly.
It's not inspirational or essential like other words.
It's strange how no one (except perhaps the most idiotic and dishonest of the god-soaked) assumes that when we say something like the previous sentence, we're implying the existence of supernatural spirits or essences.
I don't use "spiritual" to describe myself or my emotional experiences, not only because I don't believe in spirits, but also because I don't think it does any linguistic work that other words can do just as well. Those are the main reasons I probably won't use "scientility", in addition to it being visually and aurally ugly.
To me, "spirituality" only seems to indicate the location in a sentence where communication about reality ends and where ignorant hand-waving superstition begins. I don't think we need a counterpart to such a word.
err, sorry. I mean that it doesn't do work that others couldn't do just as well.
randomfactor
"I am wonderful, but not religious."
Sounds perfect!
I'm with AdamK, it should be "sciensuality" (or "scientuality" with same pronunciation). Here's my example:
Creating an imitation aquatic insect on a hook, reading the river, rolling out the line and fly, then connecting with a wild trout, bringing it in for a look and a thank you, then releasing it, is a supremely sciensual experience.
cmflyer
Montana, USA
(Add my vote for continuing to put punctuation outside quotes. It makes more logical sense.)
Another idea: bindenfreude, the pleasure of forming links/ties
"Scientility" just does not do the job.
It sounds senile, wet, and scientological.
If you need a word to describe the sense of awe and wonder you are looking for, try "sublime".
It has a bit of history in describing responses to nature's power and beauty.
It carries a little less of the spooky connotations that "spiritual" and "numinous" have. Those words are near synonyms, but "numinous" has largely escaped the New Age connotations that so infest "spiritual".
I think there is such a thing as sublime science.
I doubt there is much spiritual, numinous, or scientilist science about.
oh no, too close to senility, reject.
Easy to slip up you know. Like 'framing science' was invented by some academic and is too close to 'I've been framed' and what's worse it is really is a form of fraud as the name suggests.
kevpod @83 Geez. You are John the Baptist? If you let a little thing like where the quotes are on a blog bother you, you are too persnickety. If it means so much to you, just move the quotes any time you want to. That's what an editor does? Sure. If people had nothing to change, you would have no editing job at all. You may need some extra quotes so here are some to put where you want """"""""""""""""""""""""""". That should hold you for awhile.
So then I, "proofreader for a living", will be Salome. Where to put quotes can be a matter of taste for different venues. Also, I have heard that different languages do it differently, also the colon, semi-colon, and period, having different tastes. In American English only hidebound style manuals, which you have sold your creative soul to, rule on where to put the quotes.
You may note that I have a run-on sentence in here with 'so' used as a conjunction, both against the rules so-called. It's quite deliberate and to my taste and I like it very much. Anyone who does not like it can go be hanged on their own venue.
Mark Twain seemed to get things backwards. From his Life on the Mississippi:
[After learning to pilot a steamboat,] the romance and the beauty were all gone from the river. All the value any feature of it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it could furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat. Since those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart. What does the lovely flush in a beauty's cheek mean to a doctor but a ``break'' that ripples above some deadly disease? Are not all her visible charms sown thick with what are to him the signs and symbols of hidden decay? Does he ever see her beauty at all, or does n't he simply view her professionally, and comment upon her unwholesome condition all to himself? And does n't he sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning his trade?
I think the term we are looking for is sophic, from the Greek sophia, meaning wisdom.
because the American usage is idiotic, and shouldn't be perpetuated unnecessarily.
Good sentiment, bad word. I'll toss my two cents in toward "syndesophy".
Also, I have to admit to a certain discomfort going too far defining an "in-group" jargon. One of the first things a decent cult-leader does is isolate their followers and one of the favored means is creating a jargon unique to the group; mainstream religion continues this tradition (though usually to a lesser degree, in favor of greatier accessibility to new converts). I don't know about anyone else, but taking on trappings that parallel too closely the religion I left gives me the skeevies....
Douglas Adams called it "the awe of understanding".
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/10/ignorance-aint-bliss-for-…
@83, the more sensible quotation rule comes from across the pond; you don't include the punctuation inside the quotes unless it is part of the quoted material. As a proofreader, you should be familiar with both American and British styles and I would encourage you to use the British by default as it just makes more sense.
(I also think we should all try to use metric measures by default as well, for much the same reason.)
#79: Dawkins' brilliant concept notwithstanding, "meme" is a truly awful word. It doesn't roll off the tongue so much as stumble.
And, unlike every other one-syllable word, it doesn't rhyme with anything. At all. (Except maybe "me, myself and I".)
I'd hoped to evoke Cuttlefish, but he beat me to it.
I beam
at “meme”
It flows like cream
In some kind dream
Its cheery gleam
Blooms like the neem
So please don’t ream
Out your own team
Don’t dam the stream
Of us who teem
With vig’ran’ veem
Your disagreem-
ent with the meme
Is not, I deem
Just to blaspheme
A rhymer’s theme
But to redeem
Ideas extreme
We’d plot and scheme
A plan supreme
Reason’s regime
Which we’d esteem
Is no pipedream
But if we scream
At some phoneme
It won’t redeem
False self-esteem…
I’m out of steam
Is this the experience that this new word is trying to encompass "the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself"[23] unobstructed by the oppositions and differentiations of language
I have heard of a word in Japanese that is used like that but I only remember what the word meant or tried to describe but I do not know what the word itself is any longer. I got that from the Wikipedia art on zen. as I could not put it words myself. That is my primary reason for reacting negatively to "new Words" especially ones that try to describe things that are beyond mere words to describe without doing it in numerous pages of text. it is ridiculous to try and just a little pretentious.
I support the "scientuality" (or "sciensuality") version. It also has the benefit of sounding like 'sensual'.
And who cares about the correct etymological construction; don't be such a scientist :)
I like the new word.
*thumbsup*
:)
I never have spiritual feelings. I prefer to feel warm and fuzzy.
98=uncle frogy
I'd call it "ecstatic wonder."
The motto of my college's student government is:
"That the natural state of the human spirit is ecstatic wonder! That we should not settle for less!"
I can't find an exact source, but it may have been inspired by a quote from Timothy Leary. (I know, I know...)
"What's going to happen?"
"Something wonderful."
*pardon my fractured meter; I'm not as fast as some . . . but I am as filled with wonder as most
Scientility doesn't have a nice ring to it. Of existing words, numinous, on the other hand, still has a meaning of "indicating a presence of a divinity" - "numen" is a deity. But someone suggested using "sublime", which sounds real nice and doesn't seem to carry any supernatural baggage:
Adjective
sublime (comparative more sublime, superlative most sublime)
1. Noble and majestic.
2. Impressive and awe-inspiring.
My vote goes to use sublime, I know I will try to include it in my vocabulary from now on.
It would be better to describe senile scientists
Sublime is definitely the right word:
It's also quite a pleasant word.
The only potential problem is it doesn't quite lend itself to the same usage. And if you try and modify it in the usual ways, the results are less than satisfactory:
When someone is exposed to the sublime, are they "sublimated"?
Is someone who regularly seeks out the sublime, "subliminal"?
oh good I'm not the only one who looked at the word and immediately thought of senility. I've nothing against a new word, though scientuality sounds a little tweety-bird-esque to me. if we're going to randomly coin new words, how about sublience? from sublime+science, hehe.
syndesophy sounds good, though I feel like I would have trouble spelling it the first few times.
Ugh... would just HAVE to be my uncle who comes up with such a silly word...
Choquette can Stuffit (or Chuckit). What's wrong with 'awe' or 'amazement' or 'wonderment'?
Yes, It sounds like senility. Bad idea.
How about
scigasm?
Knowgasm?
Gotitism?
In terms of euphony, I also think it sounds a lot like scientology and senility.
In terms of etymology, it is oddly formed. The -il- element (like in Latin -ilis) was attached to -ity (like Latin -itas) was added to scient-. This scientility seems to be implying an adjective *scientile, which is a lot like the words infantile and senile.
Personally, I'd rather use a word like mirum to refer to that kind of thing. mirum is the substantive ("nounal") use of the Latin adjective mirus, "wonderful."
Are you thinking of the word syndesis? In that case: syndesiphilia and syndesiphrontis.
And about as badly formed as "Eupraxsophy."
Ha ha, good one!
Yes, exactly. Scientia (scientia-) is of Latin's first declension, not of the fourth like spiritus (stem spiritu-). Fourth-declension nouns, when they take the -al- element, more often than not retain the u of their stems.
Yes, it's better to be an etymologist instead.
Upon consideration, sophia also has a lot of religious baggage (see Hagia Sophia). According to Google Translate, the greek for understanding katavalos. I'm thinking it'll be kind of hard to mold that into something that rolls off the tongue.
OK, how about scienity. Like serenity but reality-based.No? ... ok, factasm. No, no, wait: realasm. Like realISM only ASM, see?Nah... Oh! Wait! IgotitIgotitIgotit!
datawe pron "date-awe" or, if circumstances warrant, "date-awwwww."
Yowch, an incredibly painful invented word. Sounds bad, looks bad, is difficult to spell and read. Close to senility, as everyone above me has said.
We'll get a word. But it will look right immediately and we probably won't even remember who invented it.
@ Kagato, #107:
I like that word too. It expresses the kind of connectedness and fullness that happens when some previously unknown becomes a known.
Many years ago I introduced a very middle-of-the-road, straight-laced and vaguely worshipful lady to a certain common herb that is sometimes taken in a combusted form. After a couple of tentative puffs she smiled, looked up at me and said, "This is sublime!" First time I understood the subtleties of the word.
I use this example because for that lady, at that moment, what she had discovered was, to her, sublime. And she came right out and said it earnestly and purposefully. She was moved, shifted in her perceptions and found it a happy and fulfilling experience. I've always felt that I did a good thing there. Last time I saw her she thanked me. I grinned broadly.
As to your question, "When someone is exposed to the sublime, are they "sublimated"? I would answer in the positive.
When something is revealed, when unexpected connections are made or when the light of understanding is suddenly turned on there can be a definite sensation of being "sublimated." That is, the sense of feeling a larger reality washing over one's mind and moving one along a path of continuing insight and further insight and further amazement. It feels like becoming a part of a larger set; like being dissolved and proceeding in solution in pursuit or perhaps dismissal of solutions. Getting there is half the fun.
Like how science works.
If there is a problem with sublime it might be that it can suggest the trance-like state similar to what is evidenced by certain aesthetics, dogmatists and opium addicts. Still, sublime is a wonderful word. I use it, but carefully, frequently finding that a well voiced "Wow" is often sufficient to convey teh point.
NB In no way should my comment be taken as endorsing the ingesting of substances that make you silly or weak.
Formally, I always knew it as "the aesthetic experience," a feeling of rightness also experienced with music and the visual arts.
Informally, I love a good nerdgasm as much as the next person.
Scientility brought to mind a once-respected scientist who now in his declining years routinely spouts off bigotry and other embarassing nonsense. It suggests a rather depressing type of senility wherein former scientists start to lose the plot and get sucked into ideology/dogma (I'm not sure of the right word here) of one form or another.
I changed my religion on Facebook to Scientual. :)
Sublime is good. I really really like realistic though.
I had this feeling today. I was driving to work, and I noticed all of the headlights. I was awestruck that we take things like that for granted. Technology in general does it for me.
So does trying to comprehend the time encompassed by 4 billion years. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I pity those who really do believe the universe is 6000 years old...
And when I try to think about the first of my ancestors who was able contemplate his/her own existence.
Anyone who says any religious story is more moving or inspiring than the truth is full of shit.
Scientiality? (Ugh, an extra syllable.)
What ever the word for it, I was just thinking about people like Feynman's artist yesterday, while out for a walk and looking at the birds and wishing I knew more about them... In what way does it diminish your sense of scientilitiousness to know on seeing an arctic tern that it migrates every year from the Canadian arctic to South Africa?
Stupid word. What's wrong with "aesthetic", "beautiful" or "awe"?!
In fact, I think beautiful captures exactly how I feel when I see a particularly well written computer subroutine/data structure. I also find sunsets, landscapes and people (inside or out) beautiful/truly stunning. These words work just fine and don't seem polluted when moving from one frame of reference to the next.
I think Feynman had it almost right (feeling nervous about correcting the master...). If the story is correct, he should have changed topics from the flower to physics formulae and explained how a deep knowledge of physics and math can hone an appreciation for the beauty hidden in the orbit of the planets or the arc of a baseball or why the energy of a field follows the inverse square law.
"Scientastic".
Via The Venture Brothers.
Used in Dr. Venture's answering machine message:
"And have a scientastic day!".
Rusty Venture said it. What better credentials can you possibly imagine!
I used to always cringe a bit when Carl Sagan spoke about spirituality. But then I heard Ann Druyan mention that 'spirit' and 'inspire' share the same root. I think 'spiritual' can describe a feeling of profound inspiration and awe.
Sublimated is taken. It was a solid but went straight to gas as in, "i sublimated those beans I ate."
Perhaps an easier course of action (getting back on topic) would be to launch a propaganda campain that pits spiritual nemesis against each other so that both the religious and the new age diligents, many of whom call themselves athiests, will disavow the use the term.
I propose a that every time a christian says "spiritual" you reply, "oh yeah, like like wiccan witches say, i getcha" but you can figure the converse, "you stupid new age twit, you are only tapping into God as explained in the bible, thefatherthesonandthewholly(sic)spirit, so you understand that you sound like wingnut fundamentalists..."
Furthermore, a media blitz with the catchphrase "spirituality sounds like stupiduality. "
stupiduality.
"scientuality"
Yeah, I like that better, indeed I like that best. "scientility" smacks of "utility" as was noted by others above, but that's what technology is -- utilized science -- whereas "scientuality" seems more akin to empirical "spirituality." Or something like that. So I'm gonna start using "scientuality," see how that goes.
There had to be a first time for every human discovery. A first time for any given idea. A first time for each concept that revealed something new.
Imagine being the first person to discover a way to make sound convey meaning beyond grunts and yelps. There was a specific person who first understood how to add two numbers. He, or someone else, was the first one to teach the first math student.
Imagine being the first person to sew. The first to harden the end of the stick in the fire. The first to connect the flight of a stick with the flight of a bird; the first fletcher, designer of the first guided missile.
Imagine being the first to imagine. The first to wonder and to remember and to compare and to judge all of the minutiae and see a connected whole. Truth is, there was probably no first one, rather a trait that emerged gradually and was more noticeably present in some individuals among a large population. Why, present day scientists might rightly claim those originally (firstly) enlightened ones as direct ancestors!
Wonderful. When truth comes wrapped in the excitement of challenge and the knowledge gained thereby forms a scaffold for the future it's a good bet that some form of life like us(?) would have a history to parade about, argue over, massage into various interpretations and take due and undue pride in. Pretty damned cool, come to think about it. Voluminous, even. And we would make words to describe how we feel. Words like numinous and awesome and far out. OK, that last is two of 'em.
That's what "scientility" tries to convey, poorly and sadly. Poorly because it has little resonance in the ear of a later day speaker of American English. Sadly because a word is needed. I think that we have some appropriate words already embedded in the language yet many people only know a few thousand words and show a maddening propensity to use them inappropriately, too often interchangeably.
The search continues for a sound that describes the aching that accompanies the insane pace of change that afflicts our perceptions when new facts are revealed. Heck, even a new rumor can do that. (And new facts are revealed continuously, without relief.) There is an kind of pain attendant to learning, usually related to the things we reluctantly drop by the side of the path. Pain like all of one's bones growing and bending. Like teeth moving about in the mouth. All of this has so far not been contained in one word. I'm not certain at all that it can be.
*wonderful
"Scientility" sounds like the state of mind of an old academic who's lost his marbles. Do. Not. Want.
On the other hand, I really like Rudy Rucker's adoption and expansion of the word "gnarly."
And of course there's always "grok."
"The educated layman appreciates something of the intricacy of DNA, the vastness and deepness of space and time, but only a dedicated scientist can fully grok the gnarl the universe."
"Have a gnarly day."
Failing that, there's really no shortage of words in the English language for expressing awe, wonder, amazement, breathlessness, and so on. This sounds like a case where we'd be best served by reading or writing a bit more poetry on the side, the better to express ourselves when the occasion demands it.
Scientastic is a great word, but I think I'd save it for cool shit that is specifically science-related.
Sublime nails it for me, because it describes an experiential phenomenon, regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs. Religious folk can have their "spiritual" moments (no science there), science geeks can have their nerdgasms (without being spiritual); but sublime is the word that accurately conveys the common underlying experience.
The best part is there's no word invention required; we just have to use the right word more often.
Interestingly, a quick search reveals "Sublimity" is a legitimate word. I wasn't expecting that.
"Scientility" is definitely too short: why not "scientilitudinality"?
I'd think that staying with amazement or "wow, that's cool" is much better.
It is time to use their own tactics against them. They have tried to associate science and atheism with ruthlesness etc(see movie expelled atheist=genocidal/) even though the term secular humanist directly implies humanitarin. always refer to yourself as a humanist.
now, my point. whenever someone tells you that they are spiritual, say:"sorry, did you say stupidual, thats what it sounded like."
this is key, that spiritual sounds like stupidual.
this is a fucking brilliant idea. it is a meme. you don't even have to say anything else, just "stupidual" and people will remember that word because it sounds like spiritual.
a media campain, bus adverts, pay three bucks everyone to place an ad in the classifieds of your paper and everyone will remember reading, "spirituality sounds the same as the word stupiduality"
this may be the most brilliant marketing idea in history.
what exactly does that phrase mean, spirituality sounds like the word stupiduality. thats what anyone who reads it will think
spirituality sounds like stupiduality. thats what they will remember
spirituality is stupiduality. when your child choking on a coin, do you have time to pray and meditate? get real, because god or the universal essense sure the fuck won't.
haha, god can't get real. now there is a subtle expression.
That would be the state of being "sublimated" in terms of going from a solid (congealed fundamentalism) to a gas (evidentially persuaded) without passing through a liquid (accepting conflicting evidence as equally compelling) state.
Yeah, happened to me a couple of times . . . 8^)
"Scientility" is a shade too close to 'senility' for my taste.
What's wrong with 'rationality'? Always seemed a perfectly good word to me.
No, it doesn't. You are trying to rhyme soup with soap.
That is the wonderful, numinous, spiritual, sciencetil (I'll never spell it right) and wicked cool nature of words. They all have specific meanings (along with other remora-like meanings that are a part of linguistic evolution in synch with the evolution of the speakers as well as little fish that swim with big fish) and people use words on purpose. People use words to achieve specific ends even if the ends bear little relationship to the advertising copy, the words chosen.
Try this one on for size:
It is depressing when your own interpretation of a word never takes hold. I've always taken spirituality to encompass the eventuality of the state of mind achieved after the consumption of spirits. I have had more than my fair share of true revelations when spiritually influenced.
Just snipin' through tonight. Ciao.
Sorry, did you say "stupiduality"? oh, spirituality. haha, it sounded like stupiduality, my mistake.
spirituality sounds like the word stupiduality.
that phrase will cause pause. you will remember it as "spirituality is the same as stupid."
if we all put an ad in the classifieds of our paper, next to madam charma's ad for tarot bliss, next the local pentacostal church's notice of the upcoming revival,
spirituality sounds like the word stupiduality. when your baby is choking to death, do you have time to pray and meditate? Spirituality doesn't answer 911 calls.
Get real.
okay, that is two different ads
Nice try, but a word that sounds like 'silly' just doesn't fill the bill.
Sorry for double post, thought the first was lost and i recreated it.
I also think "scientility" is a terrible word for all the reasons cited above. For people, who are allergic to the word "spiritual" a word is apparently needed to be inserted in the common phrase "I'm not religious (or spiritual), I'm ...".
How about a neologism like "mesmeral"? Regardless of whether you like that alternative, the main point should be that it fits and feels natural in the sentence: "I'm not religious, I'm ...".
Another band is already using the name "Sublime", so we can't use that.... (Just kidding, it's a lovely word.)
Perhaps I'm biased as a musician, but I think "aesthetic" might be closer to what we're talking about than awe or wonderment or sublimity, which don't quite convey the sense that it is a result of prior knowledge and experience as well as an immediate experience in the present.
It seems that many people are not inclined to say they have aesthetic experiences unless they believe they're experiencing fine art made by people. I suppose some scientists and atheists might be reluctant to associate aesthetic experiences with non-artistic objects, maybe to avoid anthropomorphization or of giving the impression that there is "intelligent design" where there is none. The fact is we still have the same kind of experiences, whether or not an artist is responsible. It would be an invalid inference, and we can deal with those accordingly.
Anyway, I'd argue that direct experience of the world (moreso than facts or descriptions of it) gives rise to those kinds of thoughts or emotions. That's why I'd link this kind of sensation to aesthetics before I would to science, even if scientific knowledge affects the degree of appreciation. It doesn't seem to be a matter of different degrees of knowledge which make one experience "scientilitious" but not another; instead, it's that different kinds of phenomena (whether informed by science or not, whether created by artists or not) can yield the same qualities of experience.
I thought that one had already been decided. The proper formulation is as follows:
"I'm not religious; I'm wonderful."
Tip 'o the hat to the wonderful Mr T.
Science is deep, not cold. It tears away the veil of ignorance, and inspires awe.
"Spirituality" is not necessarily associated with spirits and ghosts. "Spirited" gives the context as life, lively, animated - ghosts and spirits are just a construct for bodiless life. We don't need to let the other side claim our language and impoverish it.
The alternative description of scientility is "deep". Scientific appreciation gives both an intellectual and emotional depth to perceptions of the natural world.
But I'm not sure I like a word that seems to be a combination of science, senility and silly.
Another vote of support for "scientuality" here. If you're concerned about its etymology, it's quite simple: it's a portmanteau of "science" and "spirituality". More importantly it is obviously that, and that's also what it means, so you don't need to explain it to people.
Clenched-tentacle salute to Crudely Wrott
I'm with the party that votes 'scientility' is too much like 'senility'. It's also too close to 'silly' for comfort.
I think we should reclaim the word 'scientology' from the wingnuts. They don't 'own' the word, after all.
Oh, wait...
If you want to coin a word to use - one which has some likelihood of being adopted - ask some teenagers. They do it all the time.
A few friends and I have been using the word 'nerziac' - 'a thing that turns your brain on'
eg. 'I was reading The Black Swan the other day, and it was such a nerziac'
An additional thought: If you're not excited at the idea of a nerziac, 'scientAlity' might be an easier sell than 'scientility' - it makes the comparison with spirituality more obvious.
I like the word, and the sentiments, if it sounds a bit similar to senility so what, all the better to sneak up upon the woomeisters with..
It reminds of the late DrA and the first time I really had the scientogasm "gosh...wow.....sense of wonder"..
After that, the flower with the fibinacci sequence has a fundamental beauty that tickles whatever I have in place of a soul.
I do think we're lacking a word to describe those eureka moments - Uzziel
Eurekality? Most people know the story of Archimedes leaping out of his bath and running naked down the street in a state of ecstatic eurekality!
That's just plasmic with me. Dood.
justawriter at #113:
How about katavaly and katavalic?
"I think I'm a pretty katavalic person: the more I understand, the more I adore. Then again, looking up at the skies and knowing why stars burn is enough to fill anyone with katavaly for a day."
That's, like, deep shit, dude! Man.
Sorry Francois, but that is an atrocious neologism. PZ I can't believe you'd post something so ridiculous. I'll stick with wonder/wonderful, awe/awe-inspiring, and sublime. I also like the idea of "taking back" numinous. Spirituality is such an overused word it has become empty, but we don't need new words. We just need to use words we have already better.
I'm clearly spending too much time on Pharyngula because last night, inbetween a work dream (mmmm sleep chemistry....drooool) and a very strange, slightly mucky, dream about English actress Louisa Lytton*, I dreamt about the very word under discussion on this thread. I need to get a more discerning subconscious.
Anyway, we need something that incorporates RAtional, SCientific, empiricAL, and awe inspiringLY wonderful. Hmmm "rascally"**. Yeah, that works. I'm feeling rascally about this experiment.
Or not.
Louis
*In which she was my psychologist (where did THAT come from?) who misunderstood an innocent gratitude gift of flowers for an advance. Don't get me wrong, she's a very pretty woman, but at 21, much to young for me, although I'm not old enough to be her dad (just!) I think a 13 year age difference borders on worrying! Anyway, I handed over the flowers, nipped off for a wee, came back and she was in some weird skin coloured body stocking (which looked like she was naked but later conversation revealed that this was made of tinfoil...erm....no) bent over a table arranging the flowers in a vase. Since my lovely 11 month old decided to wake up and begin the morning call for Dadda slightly before the denoument, history does not relate precisely what happened next. My wife thought this dream was amusing. Fucking subconscious, amusing the Mrs like that. She was mocking me until we both left for work, and even the kid had an amused look slapped all over his boat race. Cheeky little bugger.
**Yes, this is what I dreamt about, and yes Bugs Bunny featured. I'm beginning to think that 5 dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms before bedtime is inadvisable.
Before I read the definition I thought Scientility was the state of old scientists (particularly Nobel Prize winners) who have turned to the side of woo.
#1 echos my thoughts on "scientility". The only way I would ever use such a word would be if it had a better ending like "scienity" or "sciensuality" or "scientific"—oh, wait, nevermind.
As many have pointed out, we already have words that describe more realistic sensations than spirituality when experiencing the wonders of nature. One word for the heightened awareness that I don't find mentioned in this thread is "lucidity" and "lucidness".
I vote in favour of AdamK's proposal!
@16
Dear god, don't you have better things to do; like saving the Whales or something? They were the first Mammals of your creation you know; according to your book that is..
Argh, i hate to beat a dead horse, but the first thing i thought of was also senility.
I prefer "Sciensuality". It can at least be confused with a much better word.
"I just had a sciensual experience". "Look at the way those atoms dance! It's so sciensual!!". "These religious nutbags are just missing some sciensuality".
Yeah, much better word.
Far, far to close to the word 'senility'. Auto-fail. And any word that ends in the four letters '-tism' is too close to a pyschopathic condition. 'Syndesophy' is a good start. It has a good harmony.
I believe the feeling is too big for a single word. Let the religious folk keep their insignificant and puny spirituality, a feeling that is incapable of containing anything beyond dead superstitions and worn-out faith.
I prefer learned wonder and enlightened awe; these encompass the whole of the known universe with infinite room to grow.
@revjimbob #1 - Yes. Good idea, bad word.
mwsletten #160,
Agreed. Nothing is wrong with using a couple of words in place of "spirituality".
Another already coined word, "salient", fits in well with some of these moments in time that Choquette wants to capture, I think. "Observing a rocket launch can be a salient experience."
I'm not a fan. The definition itself provides several appropriate synonyms, which is a red flag right there. Amazement, joy, celebration, awe. If you can define a word in one word, one of those words is unnecessary.
Also, I disagree that we need a scientific equivalent of the word "spiritual." They're not equivalent. They're two different things. And we already have plenty of words for both.
From the article ...
Yes, because one can only observe beauty by the most casual of observation. It is found, after all, only at the surface. One might say, it's only skin deep.
Wow.
Soup doesnt ryme with soap, wrott, and that is correct that stupidual isn't right, but I think the idea of belittling the word spirituality has merit, even if it is only a small part in establishing the merit of sciensuality and better words.
spirituality, after all, is only another word for fearofreality.
Spirituality: chicken soap for the soul.
Soup doesnt ryme with soap, wrott, and that is correct that stupidual isn't right, but I think the idea of belittling the word spirituality has merit, even if it is only a small part in establishing the merit of sciensuality and better words.
spirituality, after all, is only another word for fearofreality.
Spirituality: chicken's soap for the soul.
WTF! Spirit, soul, faith.
Science is my higher wower. yes im imbibing spirits.
A little OT, but I wanted to direct everyone's attention to yet another "Belief in Belief", anti-"New Atheist" screed by Damon Linker on the New Repiblic website.
Squeelicious?
Hey, it's on a par with nerdgasm.
I agree that "spiritual" is not what we want - too much religous connotation. However, I am not on board with creating a new word.
I propose we use "sublime". It is a word rich in philosophical tradition that I think fits the bill nicely. Here is a link to my blog describing my thoughts on a few words including spiritual, numinous and sublime.
What about syndegnostic:- a knowledge of links...
That means we could be Syndegnostics (we understand the links) or Asyndegnostic (we haven't got a clue).
Have hypersyndegnosic moments when you realise a link you haven't seen before or hyposyndegnostic when you realise you were wrong :)
We could be parasyndegnostic, when you know you should be able to see a link but just can't quite get it!
and postsyndegnostic when we're being smug about a link we knew about and no one else did:)
C:)
AlanSmithee @ 65 Wins!1! Teh Thread
Or be pseudosydegnostic, when we're full of it *grin*
I suggest we come up with a new word for "scientific theory" to stop the confusion with the common language word "theory"
I am Sooooo sick of creotards saying "Evolution is just a theory!"
My suggestion: Thyposi (thop-a-sigh) a combination of "tested" and "hypothesis"
I'll let a Science major with an English minor come up with the official definition :)
It would also be good to co-opt terms that describe real human experiences but that have been taken over by religion. Science is an incredibly powerful way to learn true things about the world and benefit thereby, but we can't assume that every atheist will be a scientist, or we're limiting the number of atheists. A la Sam Harris, I'm fine with someone saying they've had a profound or even mystical experience with meditation or isolation in the wilderness; these are real, measurable states of consciousness that are meaningful to humans and that we can't afford to keep semantically surrendering to theists.
Personally, I like the simple word "Awesome!"
And as a special nod to justawriter@#92, I'd call something "Sophically Awesome" to convey the meaning someone planned for "scientility".
Reading all these comments leads me to a question: Do I sense yet another rift in the atheist movement? Yet another schism?
Uh, no. Carry on.
MikeM
lijdare -
"Not only is the word all wrong so is the idea behind it. There is nothing wrong with the use of 'spirituality' as defined as the "sum total of personal emotional reactions to the universe, existance, or one's life itself." The human spirit is exactly just that an emotional reaction. It portends nothing to do with supernaturalities, and any such interpretation is just that - a bad/false interpretation of human reactions. Going off and creating a different lexicography for what people have been experiencing for the last seventy-five thousand years (if not more) yet poorly interpreted just sets apart what an atheist might experience from someone who is religious. When, in fact, they are the same thing, despite the religious interpretations."
I agree.
I like "syndesophy" too, because it sounds like a beautiful, accomplished woman in a lab coat, technical, but soft and lovely in all the right ways. All the other words proposed are hard, ugly, and reminiscent of things they shouldn't be.
If we're going to start making up words to prevent creationists misusing them, we're going to need a whole new language. Pointing out the flaws in their logic does far more to demonstrate just how little they understand what they're arguing against. "Just a theory" is equivocation, nothing more.
I really don;t know why we need a new word... "Fucking Awesome" works for me every time.
Scientility should be added as a word. It's a good one.
May I be the 201st person to point out that this is like "the Brights" all over again? A smart, well-meaning person has correctly identified an important need for a specific word, and then bravely picked a truly awful word. It reads like, and sounds like, a combination of "Scientism" and "Senility". It brings to mind BioLogos, Linus Pauling on vitamin C, Freeman Dyson on global warming, Lynn Margulis on any number of topics, etc.
I didn't read the thread, but I'm sure at least 10 people have pointed out that Sagan and several others used the word "numinous" for this purpose.
@ 166 who did, if a bit wobbly, say:
My hearty agreement concerning belittlement but with this caveat: that such scolding be tightly focused on particular people and the particular things they say and do. Blanket accusations and indicting entire classes for the foibles of the one or the few usually stir up more trouble than it's worth.
"Sciensuality" is marginally better than, wassit? "scientility." Yet neither roll off the tongue in any instinctive or pleasing fashion. They are words you have to work at to say and as such probably will have a short life, if any.
Now, if we could find a word that rolls out almost on its own and has as few constraints of definition as "spiritual" has then we might be on to something. Until then I'll take my pick from a list of already proven words and trust listeners to have at least some insight into their native language.
In all, "wonderful" is probably the most useful word for the feeling of standing on a threshold and peering into the largest room you've ever seen. "Awful" once served this need but has since lost its finer edge of "inspiring breathless apprehension" and has been blunted to "yuck."
*since you are imbibing spirits, are you feeling spiritual?
I'm with MJP--"scien-tee-lee-tee"??
Except I'd nitpick that in English there's no such thing as long and short vowels (contrary to what they teach in grade school). Greek has them; so does Japan (that's why you see bars over some vowels in Japanese names like Kyoto). A long vowel simply takes longer to pronounce than a short vowel; it doesn't change the sound you make, just how long you make it.
So the middle syllables should be soft I sounds: "scien-tih-lih-tee".
Gould1865 #90:
"Where to put quotes can be a matter of taste for different venues."
If punctuation is a matter of individual taste, then why not spelling? Where does it end?
There is such a thing as AP style. It's what U.S. writers generally follow.
The theory of punctuation is that consistent style makes the mechanics of expression invisible so that the thought behind it shine through unencumbered.
I don't think this is the most important thing to argue about. But at the same time it is an annoyance to see sloppy punctuation in a place like this.
40yearoldatheist:
Damn! Not only did you steal my thoughts (#105) on numinous and sublime, you actually wrote them better - and three weeks ago in your blog...
Anyway. I'm still in favor of sublime, but it must be admitted it's hard to form words based on it, as many such words already have a specific meaning
ElNauhual wrote:
Cientismo sounds pretty awesome to me, for what that's worth :)
I don't like scientility because it sounds too much like a portmanteau of science and utility. The reaction described has less to do with utility than it does with informed wonder.
Syndecstasy?
Certainly sounds like something I'd like to try. You promise I won't be fucked up after just two pills?
I promise nothing.
Arthur Koestler called it the 'oceanic feeling' in 'Darkness at Noon'
I think what you folks are talking about is simply awe but what do I know.
I am off the grid this summer down in the southern California desert. I make about 2.5 kw a day from PV that runs the lights and water and computers and the occasional vacuum. The problem is the heat. It will be up in the bazzillion degree range this summer and wet t-shirts and spray bottles stop working at about a hundred.
I built what I call a personal swamp cooler that consists of 2 plastic ice cream buckets with swamp cooler mat and 2 computer case fans in between. The sucker actually works to my amazement so far. I have been monitoring the temps very closely during the design, build and revision phases with a Radio Shack IR thermometer. Here is where the awe comes in.
Measuring the temperature of the water and my desk and my skin is easy. The air output from the fans was iffy at best and the most important measurement when tinkering. The fans are beige shiny plastic and I couldn't get a consistent reading. The google sent me to a concept called emissivity. From there to the black bodys of Planck and Einstein.
Awe.
Here I am playing with an ancient idea on my kitchen table and Al and Max show up to put my primitive understanding into perspective. Whatever you folks are calling it, I understand the concept completely.
BTW, the solution was a bit of gauze glued to the fan grill. Consistent temps every time.
thanx Al and Max
-gary-
Love the idea, hate the word. Good attempt, though.
Actually, German has "Triumphmarsch", which translates something like "victory parade" (and the music thereof?). In general, it seems to me that by prefixing Triumph- you can make pretty anything triumphal.
I triumphantly deduce:
Triumphverständnisgefühl
Now say it quickly three times...
Go look up at the stars at night - somewhere reasonably free of city light pollution. Then look again, with the thought in mind about how huge these points of light really are, how unimaginably distant. How the fact that the sky looks like a dome is an optical illusion.
But when you do, be sure you have somethig to hang onto so that you do not fall.
Paulmurray:
"But when you do, be sure you have somethig to hang onto so that you do not fall."
In the middle of the countryside?
I'm a bit of a culinary geek as well as a very minor science geek.
Might I suggest scibullient?
From sci, of obvious derivation, and ebullient, meaning "coming to a boil."