Lies, Damn Lies

Definitions

I was wondering the other day, in my semi-random way, how many people have to name a thing a thing before it becomes that.

For example, if I personally was to call a clock a banana, I would probably be ridiculed, and possibly locked in a small room with white walls (the toilet). However, if the entire world called the clock a banana, one would be perfectly justified in calling it so. This, one can certainly reduce down to nationwide level, as languages clearly show that, but what about proportions of the country? Communities can do it. Cockneys, scousers, and others can name things crazy and cooky names, and that is fine. Is it alright if just a group of friends call something something? Certainly that works for names, I respond to K, Kil, and, if Toby is feeling like a swine, joke.

I'm not sure theres a particular point when a word becomes accepted lingo. If over half the community says it, is it a word for that community? Perhaps, if they are the influential half. Perhaps thats what its all about. Words come from trendsetters.

I think what you've got to be impressed by are people like the Greeks and the Romans. See, practically every word in European language just stems from greek or roman words, like television (sound-light), this extends even to basic animals. So how did the romans come up with their language? Doubtlessly they stole it from even earlier people, which makes me think that theres some kind of great conspiracy, and we never actually named anything, just stole the names from someone else. Not sure how exactly that would work, probably with aliens....

It really annoys me when people suggest that aliens (or indeed) God, could be used to explain the existence of intelligence. The idea of intelligent design is clearly flawed if you think about it. Its central thesis is that intelligence is so damn difficult to create, the only thing that can create it is intelligence. Therefore, their bizzare intuitive leap is, aliens or God made us. No, therefore paradox. If you can demonstrate that intelligence can only be created by intelligence, then intelligence cannot exist. Its not the most complex of ideas, surely. God explains nothing, because you must explain him. Sure, believe in God if you must, but don't pretend he can be part of a scientific theory. He explains nothing, so whats his point, other than something to comfort you from the realisation that your life probably actually is meaningless, and when you die, thats probably it.

Of course, while I suspect both to be the case, I don't really believe that, but I know my belief that there might be something after I die is merely a self protective measure, rather than a truism....

Hmph, it does tire me though, that one has to fight these battles about evolution. Religon should get its ugly litle head out of science- it has no place there, it hasn't since the 15th century. It cannot win a logical, rational argument, and as thats the basis for science, it really shouldn't try. Unfortunately, people are not logical, and so they often respond to the ridiculous hand waving arguments that creationists so often do.

But meh. Its odd, that some of the biggest injustices that I rail about, homophobia and the creation/evolution, and contraceptive debates, are often engineered by those of faith, yet I hold little bile for organised religon itself. I mean, I do a bit, I think it would be a better world with atheists, but I do like some of the things religon preaches. Specifically, it is being a big part of the monumental make poverty history campaign, although, odddly, more so in the UK than the US. You'd think a country of faith, as the US appears to be, might have a more active campaigns against one of the greatest injustices today, but... hmm.

Ah well, we need a paradigm shift in the US as there has been in the UK. And I love any excuse to say "paradigm shift". Maybe I should go into managment....

posted by Mr K @ 2:04 pm