Indie, a rose, by any other name...

[Doc Durian]

I've done a search and I see few similarities if any between us.

[vashti]

He's had more than one screen name. As for the similarities (based on the little we know of you), you are both bright, but with a nasty little mean streak. Of course, I will allow for the possibility we just don't know you all that well yet.

[Doc Durian]

Mean streak? heh...

I just give as good as I get.

But you'll work this out with time

[IndiReloaded]

You and I are not on the same page, but it's not surprising; you are a scientist, clearly, and I am a writer. We are, and probably always will, see things on the other sides of the fence.

I can tell you are a writer simply b/c you use too many words to explain a simple concept. Which is another way that communication gets confused.

But, that said, I should point out that many scientists are also excellent writers. The converse is almost never true. So, all your comments about right/left brain, fences sides, etc. are actually your preconceived notions about How The World Works (and scientists). Your limitation, not mine. I never made those assertions.

And, on that note, since you seem unaware: many excellent scientists would be classed as "right brain". Like the word 'syndrome', you don't seem to understand what that means either. Nevertheless, it is merely a psych construct, which in an earlier post, you seemed to take issue with (in the context of the word 'syndrome'). I guess you'll use constructs when they suit your argument and dismiss them when they don't? Interesting.

'Syndrome' connotes a negative idea in your head,

Not in my head. According to the Oxford standard dictionary. I posted one standard definition, perhaps you should go read it again. Take it up with them if you have a problem.

This is the crux of the issue. And anyone will tell you how important clarity is. I was being clear. I was citing where my argument came from, illustrating it with examples, and explaining as clearly as possible, the ideals expressed by a wordy philosopher. He is indeed a bit thick to get through. But now that you have read above, you can see that I have defined how I defined the definition.

Could you please post, exactly where you defined "syndrome"? B/c that is what we are really discussing; it is the word that caused the confusion. I must have missed it. I posted very clearly the definition I understood, which, as I say is the standard one that professionals use and understand.

Words are simply sounds littered with emotions and tonal inflections. And linguistics is an actual science.

Words are also given precise definitions, something you seem to believe is fluid. Have you ever spoken with a linguistics scientist? I have. He (or she) will tell you the same thing.

And, that postmodernist gibberish you posted isn't really considered 'science'. Because it can't be hypothesized or tested with the scientific method. What you are discussing is more akin to literary theory, which, as I said to you, I find mostly bunk. So do many (if not most) linguistic *scientists*. Particularly when they try to pass it off as science, something it is clearly not.

Just so we are clear--- I get you. But your perspective on this is pretty tunnel visioned. Plato illustrated in his story of the enlightenment trap:

There are people chained inside a cave,

LOL. I love this about artsy folk! You are trying to lecture to me on something I read as a teenager & already understand. I bet I read Plato's Allegory of the Cave before you were born.

What's amusing about it is that, *many* scientists are very familiar with the story, but I doubt very much you'd be able to explain to me the significance of Dirac's equation. LOL.

Of course, knowledge is contextual and affected by our perception, that is basically what Plato was saying. So we need to be careful in our statements about the world. But, THIS is the beauty of the scientific method: that we can, objectively, test hypotheses about our world and see how those results fit our actual experiences. We can make *models* that allow us to *predict* things about our world. Plato would have loved the scientific method if it had been invented during his lifetime.

This is where deconstructionist ideas fall flat on their face. They can't explain anything reliably, and they argue, falsely, that all ideas are created equal. This is just garbage. All ideas are NOT created equal. I could give specific examples where this is demonstrated, but I hope that you aren't so far gone that you can see the logic of this. Some ideas have more merit than others, the scientific method allows us a very robust way of making those kinds of judgements. Which, by the way, must absolutely be made b/c we all have limited time and some things are just more right than others. One can't just *decide* something is true (or not) & have others actually take you seriously when you try to convince them. LOL.

Socrates said he knew nothing. In recognizing the blip on the radar screen, and the humility in that you open your mind to the possibilities that are instead of closing off options and ideas that may hold some merit.

Socrates was being facetious. He also meant it in a more universal sense (there is much still to learn). He was discussing his ratio of 'known to unknown", if you will. Obviously, he knew *something*. Plenty, in fact.

As for the rest, all I can tell you is what I already said: not all ideas have equal merit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making judgements based on solid criteria. Some of us even get *paid* to do this for a living. If you are offended by someone telling you an idea is crap, well, the onus is on you to explain why they are incorrect. If you care they understand and appreciate your point. If you don't, then shrug. This is always true.

Back to our specific exchange: You are right--YOU understood ME. And the reason for that is b/c I used a standard, accepted definition for a word. Doing this promotes understanding by providing a common baseline for communication. YOU confused ME b/c you used a word incorrectly (or used some non-standard definition that only you understood). As I said before, mathematicians that change how terms are defined *must* explicitly define their terms or else confusion reigns and noone understands their work. Same thing.

So, your posting all these silly philosophical arguments about fluidity in language & ideas was just an excuse for poor form in language use. You didn't understand an accepted definition for a common word, you failed to explain what you *did* mean, and this muddied the communication waters. All the rest of your posts were, like I said, pure rubbish.

For example, your first post in this thread still says a whole lot of nothing. There's a lot of it, but that doesn't mean you are actually saying anything. Just like Alan Sokal's article all those years ago. These postmodernist/deconstructionist arguments are worse than useless and full of holes. Its a terrible, confusing way to try to explain oneself.

but your argument would hold more merit if you weren't constantly insulting mine. The thing you are failing to realize is that neither of us is wrong or right in the context of I win, you lose or vice versa.

I am perfectly within my rights to state when someone is trying to make a false argument. In fact, I view it as my solemn duty to do so. And you are, unfortunately, wrong. There *are* some ideas that are right & some that are wrong. Or perhaps you would like to come up with some deconstructionist way of explaining how the speed of light is anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. Or the truth about transfer of momentum when stepping in front of a car, you completely ignored that example.

But, FWIW, I do not view this as a 'win/lose' scenario. More like improving your critical thinking ability, which I think has been compromised by your education in these postmodernist subjects. They are fun, brain-stretching ideas, but of little practical problem-solving value in the real world.

But I am certainly not condemning science, I am just taking this point of view in the debate. Someday, I'm sure I will be somewhere arguing your side of the coin but today I stand here.

Gosh, I hope you aren't condemning science. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't have a job. The printing press, computers, laser printers, the internet... all due to science.

Here, a link I ask all students to read, please do so:

[url]http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html[/url]

[Sonrisa]

finally Indi has found a match.

[Petit Papillon]

It reminds me of...
[URL="http://www.videovat.com/videos/1957/paris-hilton-nicole-richie-celebrity-death-match.aspx"]http://www.videovat.com/videos/1957/paris-hilton-nicole-richie-celebrity-death-match.aspx[/URL]

Good night and good fight !

[IndiReloaded]

finally Indi has found a match.

She's just like some students I've had. It comes with the territory. If it sounds like this isn't the first time I've made this lecture, well, there you are.

[IndiReloaded]

i think doc is bohemiandonut.

Oh no! Is he really? I can't argue with him, then. BD is forever in my good books for his thorough routing of One Moron.

[doppelgaenger]

Yep.. they are going to smack each other with their diplomas...

[Rollerderby]

Let's back this way way up and not get too far off topic. This entire conversation arose from you calling one guy I was seeing as possibly being an iron fist in a velvet glove. In my agreement with you towards another poster I attached the word syndrome.

Let's define an Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove first, shall we?

"Someone who rules or controls something with an iron fist is in absolute control and tolerates no dissent. An iron fist in a velvet glove is used to describe someone who appears soft on the outside, but underneath is very hard. 'Mailed fist' is an alternative form."

Now this isn't oxford dictionary, I'm sorry, it's from this website, but if you have a better definition of this term, well go right ahead, if you agree then let's leave it. [url]http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/iron+fist.html[/url]

Here is your own definition of the word syndrome. I never refuted the definition, that is why I never gave my own. I simply said it didn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

syndrome /syn·drome/ (sin´drōm) a set of symptoms occurring together; the sum of signs of any morbid state; a symptom complex.

Out of the words used in this definition, a set of symptoms, a morbid state, morbid is the only word that connotes a negative understanding. Now let's define Morbid:

adjective: having or showing an unhealthy interest in unpleasant subjects, especially death and disease.

Ok so syndrome essentially means that if one has certain symptoms, of an unhealthy state they can be classified with a syndrome. As long as the symptoms are existing together in one perfunctory unit, only having some of the symptoms would not allow anyone to classify it as a syndrome. All symptoms must be present.

Ok so, if one is to be classified as having an "iron fist in a velvet glove" they must also be able to show certain characteristics together in a group. A positive syndrome if you will. Here is an article I found online about what it means to be a man with an iron fist in a velvet glove. [url]http://www.askmen.com/money/mafioso_150/190_mafia.html[/url]

Now, what I want to know from you is if you either agree, or disagree with any of these characteristics, or if you have any you'd like to add in this description of a man who is an "iron fist in a velvet glove." If these characteristics need to be present in anyone who fits the bill. If they lack one, are they still "iron fist, velvet glove"? I believe that technically, we would have found that this term can co-exist with the term syndrome, except it would not be a negative syndrome, it would be a positive one-- something that psychiatry has yet to classify.

Also, I believe if you go back to the last thread and take a look at my earlier comments, you will see that some of what I said to you was, in fact, in agreement with what you have said. Maybe I worded it differently than you would have, but I can't help that. Also, the side-point I have tried to make from the very beginning, which hasn't been fully discussed is how 90% of communication is non-verbal. I agree with Doc and Yggdrasil in that some kind of mis-understanding took place with what I said. I have my own way with words, and humor is not always readable in the context of the internet. But still, this is entertaining. I'm not entirely sorry for it

[IndiReloaded]

LOL.

I agree with your example of 'iron fist, velvet glove'. Particularly that askmen.com article. If I had to write an article describing it, it would be very similar:

a man who hides an iron fist in a velvet glove is a man with the diplomacy and tact to resolve things rationally, and the guts to unleash his iron fist when circumstance demands it.

As I said, I also view this^ as a positive personality trait.

Now, your word syndrome, is generally associated with a negative connotation. I gave you a standard dictionary definition, but if you want to expand, here are some common usages of the word:

Stockholm syndrome (dependence on a kidnapper)
AIDS(yndrome)
Anton-Babinsky syndrome (a brain disorder making ppl clinically blind)

and so on.

So, I suppose you could conclude that, you simply confused things by bringing together a positive state (iron fist/velvet glove) with a negative one (syndrome). Making me wonder if you understood one, either, or neither. As such, you needed to clarify better what you meant (was it good or bad to have such a personality trait).

I tried to find a synonym for 'syndrome' that would perhaps make your point better, but unfortunately, all my returns were negative words like: illness, complex, disorder, affliction, sickness.

I think you just needed to choose a better word to make your point more clear.

I'm good with that.

[IndiReloaded]

Yep.. they are going to smack each other with their diplomas...

LOL, I haven't mentioned my degree, just that I teach. I do quite well with reason & logic, my degree is an extension of that, not the converse. You guys know how I feel about that: I was good on the day, that is all.

[Rollerderby]

It's funny you brought up examples, I was inches away form posting another website filled with examples of syndromes, but yes I see what you are getting at. There is no such thing as "iron fist velvet glove syndrome" but hypothetically speaking, we could say by your own admission that these characteristics fit into a nice neat box that we could stamp a label on.

I think it's somewhat ironic that in order to lump or group something together and give it a defined label in science (as with the term syndrome) there are only negative connotations. Anything that is diagnosed outside of "perfectly healthy" is bad. There are no medical terms for a group of symptoms that society deems as good.

So, I suppose you could conclude that, you simply confused things by bringing together a positive state (iron fist/velvet glove) with a negative one (syndrome). Making me wonder if you understood one, either, or neither. As such, you needed to clarify better what you meant (was it good or bad to have such a personality trait).

I tried to find a synonym for 'syndrome' that would perhaps make your point better, but unfortunately, all my returns were negative words like: illness, complex, disorder, affliction, sickness.

I think you just needed to choose a better word to make your point more clear.

So syndrome isn't the best word, you're right, but does it fit? Yes, though a bit awkwardly. In my last post I made clear example of that, though what was not clear to you was if I was using the term in a positive or negative light, since you are used to the word being used in a negative way.

So, if a term were to exist that grouped together symptoms of positive traits, what word would you use?

[Mish]

I AM

the iron fist in the velvet glove

(Be afraid)

[Illusional]

f*ck... this thread took me 10 mintues just to get to the bottom and i was using the "page down" button.

raverboy