On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:27 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@GMAIL.COM> wrote:No private spin, I not only went on my own usage, I also consulted several sources and reduced it to the brief narrative I posted.
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Most scientists fall under deism. They are fine with references to "god", "mother nature", or just "nature", if only to provide a point of reference in a philosophical discussion.
> Some scientists fall under theism. They worship a god.
> The above and what follows comprise a good example of how RH puts a private spin on his words, which he sometimes bothers to share, as here, and other times considers poetic license to just use in his special way.
>Most people don’t think deeply or as formally as I do. Some people think they think deeply but are only following directions. Toss the directions, and yes, they look silly. Also, most people, even if the think deeply sometimes, don’t do it as often as I do.
> I understand your meaning, as shown above (it applies when gambling, risk taking), but is this how people generally talk?
I have used private language before, and this is certainly not an instance of that.
Regarding (c), there have been doubts raised by 4 people here, but I have dozens (at least) that disagree with those 4. And the study of those 4, whether they are aware of it or not (obviously not) have deepened my understanding of natural language and how some people fail with it. Most of those failures seem to occur when the language user has adopted a very specific and narrow usage of the word. They hardcode the words, and worse, the emotion attached to the word in the context they first heard it. This seems to be your issue here. By my ontology above, you are religious, which you even seem to agree with, yet, irregardless of the context I put that *use* of the word *religious* in, you can’t get out of your head the image of a church going god worshiper.
> (c) an awareness that one is developing a lot of quirky meanings and so a corresponding ability to bridge to a more mainstream way of talking
> I'd say the jury is still out on how influential RH's thinking will be. I think most of the doubts expressed so far have been around (c).
It wouldn’t hurt those 4 persons to reflect on what I am saying.