Scope, Definition, Equivocation and Semantic Drift

When talking with the Theists, they often misuse the word heart. They say things like "Know in your heart". I recommend not tolerating that type of thing and point out to them that hearts pump blood and can't know anything. By tolerating a loose use of terms, it promotes "entropy" in the meaning of the word, allowing the meaning to shift, thereby permitting equivocation to take place, thereby permitting an illicit type of confirmation and commitment or acceptance of its appropriateness, thereby propagating inaccurate information.


In the course of a conversation, do not lose track of the scope and definition of a word. In the case that it is being used incorrectly to make a point, draw attention to its improper usage.Do not implicitly commit to any ideas that you do not intend to, and that includes any discussions of Adam and Eve. Don't forget that a huge base of established knowledge and technology that depends on that established knowledge unequivocally show that scriptural descriptions of Human Origins are false. Yes, I know that it falsifies the top four religions in the world, but that is an indicator that we need to reassess our culture, values, principles and beliefs to fit with what we know.

Violating The First Rule Of Critical Discussion

Recurrent claim from Christians in comments:

"you seem to be questioning God. Why didn't God do this? why did God do that? The short answer is, because God does what he pleases and since he is infinite in knowledge, then God knows best, not us."
10:41 PM, August 23, 2008

According to Van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Walton, the first rule of a critical discussion is that

1. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing or casting doubt on each others viewpoints.

[Rules for Critical Discussion by Frans Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst, taken from "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation" by Douglas Walton,Cambridge University Press, 2006.]

But what we see here is that some christians don't have a problem with trying to shut down critical questioning of biblical principles. When Biblical principles don't accurately reflect reality, then one of two things are happening. Biblical principles are flawed or reality is flawed. Pick your poison.

Problem of Other Minds, God and Us

I can sum it up in two words. Cat Herding.


Wikipedia describes "The Problem of Other Minds" as follows.
Given that I can only observe the behaviour of others, how can I know that others have minds?

Now how does this relate to Us and God? How do we know that God has a mind? How do I know that you have a mind? How do I know that I am not a brain in a vat? As interesting and as fun as all these questions are to think about I want to look at it more pragmatically.

That's cool.
I know what I mean, but do you?
What does that mean? It depends on context doesn't it? This is the problem of other minds. I don't know if you've understood what I mean. I would know if you've understood what I mean if I could put the thoughts in your head exactly the way they should be but I can't. I have to tell you.

So now I'm planning a project and I have to describe to these people what the specifications are going to be. I am going to try to use the principle of clarity and minimize as much uncertainty as I can. I use email but someone always misunderstands what I mean. They take their misunderstanding of what I mean and shoot off an email to some other people pretty soon, the project is off track. I draw a picture, scan it, and send it in the next email. This works better but there is always some information missing or some information that will get interpreted in a way that I didn't expect. It would be so much better if they could read my mind. It would be so much better if I could just download the electrochemical state in my head and pass it on to them to upload. But the problem is that they would still be missing information unless I passed onto them the whole configuration of my brain, because they don't have my memories or resultant heuristic algorithms that I have acquired over time.

The truth is, it is a 'miracle' if this project turns out as planned and on schedule and within budget because people can't read minds and, regardless of their best efforts, can only understand what they have a foundational knowledge about.

Since this is the case and is a source of my frustration, either I am the only one this happens to, or it is a symptom of human cognition.

Since this is the case, it is silly for me to expect that generating text is going to keep this project on track. It is silly for me to use terms and examples that my associates don't have a foundational knowledge of. It would be better if I could just impart this knowledge into them with no chance of mistake or misinterpretation.

The only way I could do that is to be God. But we know that Gods don't work that way. But I bet they would if they were real.