The Big Sammon Thread

[CornwallRam]

Words can be used in many ways, and language does evolve, but by the same token it was pretty clear the context you were trying to use the word in. The word 'literally' is a good example, as mentioned before, as it in common usage now means both that something is literally and not actually literally, and the compilers of the OED recognise this as well. However, when discussing something that has strict definitions, such as the differences between a hypothesis and a theory in a context of exploring something in a manner like you were, then you should avoid using the casual terms as they may be misleading or confusing.

I would also point out that you are still wrong about the meaning of Theorem, that includes the OED definitions.

I don't remember using the word 'literally'.

 

I take it that you do know the meaning of a straw man argument?

[Albert]

I don't remember using the word 'literally'.

 

I take it that you do know the meaning of a straw man argument?

You didn't use it, you don't need to, I was giving a common example of other words that have picked up other meanings in casual contexts that aren't appropriate for all contexts. That is not a strawman, a strawman is building a simplistic version of your argument and then arguing only against that. I never did this, instead explaining the meaning of all terms, the reason for clarity and then offered an example to show why your use of another common fallacy didn't even help your argument. That is, the example was to show why even your appeal to authority (in this case the OED) was irrelevant in such a context. Then again, I really shouldn't have to explain why appeal to authority is a fallacy, as you are now bringing them up.

[Duracell]

Maybe I've had too much alcohol...but isn't the discussion of this thread more circular than the most circly circle on this planet?

[CornwallRam]

You didn't use it, you don't need to, I was giving a common example of other words that have picked up other meanings in casual contexts that aren't appropriate for all contexts. That is not a strawman, a strawman is building a simplistic version of your argument and then arguing only against that. I never did this, instead explaining the meaning of all terms, the reason for clarity and then offered an example to show why your use of another common fallacy didn't even help your argument. That is, the example was to show why even your appeal to authority (in this case the OED) was irrelevant in such a context. Then again, I really shouldn't have to explain why appeal to authority is a fallacy, as you are now bringing them up.

Again, a very limited and restrictive definition of a straw man argument.

 

You appear to need to eradicate nuance within your linguistic constructs. I wonder if your statistical training has given you this need to apply very strict ‘rules’ to language in order make it fit into your own paradigm?

[Albert]

Again, a very limited and restrictive definition of a straw man argument.

 

You appear to need to eradicate nuance within your linguistic constructs. I wonder if your statistical training has given you this need to apply very strict ‘rules’ to language in order make it fit into your own paradigm?

This is too funny. Firstly, my background is within theoretical physics, not statistics. Within my field you need some creativity and the ability to think outside the box, but hey, strawmen and such.

You just seem to be very defensive about ever being wrong, so you try and tap dance your way out of it. It's actually really funny, I await the next instalment. Sadly, you've said absolutely nothing in this post beyond a rather shiny way of saying "nuh uh! I'm right!" and then a veiled personal attack. Still funny.

[EastKentRam]

This is too funny. Firstly, my background is within theoretical physics, not statistics. Within my field you need some creativity and the ability to think outside the box, but hey, strawmen and such.

You just seem to be very defensive about ever being wrong, so you try and tap dance your way out of it. It's actually really funny, I await the next instalment. Sadly, you've said absolutely nothing in this post beyond a rather shiny way of saying "nuh uh! I'm right!" and then a veiled personal attack. Still funny.

 

Sheldon Cooper is a Derby fan, wow.

[uttoxram75]

Maybe I've had too much alcohol...but isn't the discussion of this thread more circular than the most circly circle on this planet?

In a roundabout way, yes.

[Ambitious]

The depressing thing is, he is by far our second best striker.. By far! (That's signed on)

A lot better than Tyson, Theo, Doyle and Currently Bennett.

I've mentioned it before, it's all relative - but you put our best 10 players down currently he'll be one of them so if he is awful, then our team is awful same ones for people who mention Coutts! I'm not saying you're wrong but at least be consistent

[ronnieronalde]

Sheldon Cooper is a Derby fan, wow.

 Biffa Bacon is a Derby fan, wow.

[EastKentRam]

Just googled.

 

Well played.

[CornwallRam]

This is too funny. Firstly, my background is within theoretical physics, not statistics. Within my field you need some creativity and the ability to think outside the box, but hey, strawmen and such.

You just seem to be very defensive about ever being wrong, so you try and tap dance your way out of it. It's actually really funny, I await the next instalment. Sadly, you've said absolutely nothing in this post beyond a rather shiny way of saying "nuh uh! I'm right!" and then a veiled personal attack. Still funny.

 

 

It is often the charge of someone who has lost an argument that their opponent is being defensive.

 

You unilaterally took it upon yourself to criticise my grammar – on a football forum. This is an action which probably deserves a description slightly less polite than defensive.

 

I then pointed out that you were, in fact, ether mistaken or a higher authority on the English language than the lexicographers at the University of Oxford. Rather than offering an apology, you then tried to construct a bizarre argument based on popular misuses of the word ‘literally’. It was certainly ‘creative’.

 

If you want to continue this rather odd attempt to defend your initial arrogance then feel free.

[BOB BIGGS]

 

[BOB BIGGS]

 

Nothing at all..... Put it down to age

[cheron85]

It is often the charge of someone who has lost an argument that their opponent is being defensive.

 

You unilaterally took it upon yourself to criticise my grammar – on a football forum. This is an action which probably deserves a description slightly less polite than defensive.

 

I then pointed out that you were, in fact, ether mistaken or a higher authority on the English language than the lexicographers at the University of Oxford. Rather than offering an apology, you then tried to construct a bizarre argument based on popular misuses of the word ‘literally’. It was certainly ‘creative’.

 

If you want to continue this rather odd attempt to defend your initial arrogance then feel free.

 

If you have a problem with definitions I don't think you should use "unilaterally" like that...

 

Whilst the defintion would (broadly) allow for it you would need to be directing that accusation at more than just Albert...

 

But if Albert used "literally" in place of "figuratively" I will reach my influence (I'm Batman) down under and slap him...

[Albert]

It is often the charge of someone who has lost an argument that their opponent is being defensive.

 

You unilaterally took it upon yourself to criticise my grammar – on a football forum. This is an action which probably deserves a description slightly less polite than defensive.

 

I then pointed out that you were, in fact, ether mistaken or a higher authority on the English language than the lexicographers at the University of Oxford. Rather than offering an apology, you then tried to construct a bizarre argument based on popular misuses of the word ‘literally’. It was certainly ‘creative’.

 

If you want to continue this rather odd attempt to defend your initial arrogance then feel free.

...what?

I never criticised your grammar, I merely pointed out that what you offered was a hypothesis, not a theory, as I felt that calling you musing to yourself a theory seemed quite odd. I freely admit I was being a ***** by saying that, but your responses were both factually incorrect and lacking any more substance than falsely calling what I said a strawman.

What is odd as well is that while you were crying foul of what you perceived to be a strawman, a common fallacy, you yourself attempted to build your entire argument around the fallacy of appeal to authority. What's even funnier though is that this does has already been well and truly dealt with as we're talking about a particular context here.

Put bluntly, you should have either ignored me being a *****, or told me I was being a *****. There is no possible way of defending what you said from there as it is factually wrong and what went on from there was based around a fallacy. I'm not sure why you felt the need to continue it without offering anything new in a few posts is beyond me, but hey, I'm always put for a long pointless discussion.

Let's clear some things up though, what exactly have you have said so far:

I strongly suspect the £1.2m figure came from the club. By 'leaking' the figure they effectively said ' look we've bought a star striker - buy some tickets.' Of course, the 'fact' that it came from the club (if my theory is correct), doesn't make the figure correct. In this case it would have been in the club's best interests to inflate the figure.

The key part for the discussion is the "if my theory is right" part. You've offered no explanation of what backing this "theory" has, and as such it can't really be considered a theory. Now, there real question here is the context of what is meant by a "theory". Now, like many words theory is used in all sorts of contexts these days, rightly or wrongly. The previous example I used was "literally", which Oxford England Dictionary lists as both meaning "Literally" and "not actually Literally". This is not the discussion here, I'm not interested in whether or not it is a common casual usage, and I made it clear from early in the discussion that I knew that there are common casual usages that are as you've used it. That was never the point, the point was whether it was right to use this in this context while using the word properly, not just casually.

The real question is what you mean by theory. Depending on discipline theory can mean a number of things, so what is the context here? Are you using it as a way of saying that based on past events and experience you feel that it may be the case that it works like that? If that's the case, it's a hypothesis, it doesn't really fit the strict definitions of a scientific hypothesis, but it's a hypothesis none the less. The key here really is whether you are saying that this idea that you have is solid and based on a body of evidence and it is well established that it is consistent with what's seen, or if it's an idea that you're proposing to explain it. But let's move on to what we've actually discussed:

No that's the definition of a theorem.

 

One of the OED's definitions of a theory is 'A hypothesis proposed as an explanation'

 

And it's an unsupported assertion - you have no idea how much evidence I have or have not got, and you have no idea of how many case studies I have undertaken, so even by your incomplete understanding of the phrase you are struggling

 

If you want to argue semantics you've come to the right place

To repeat this, no, that is not a theorem. A theorem is a statement that is true so long as the statements that it is based on hold true. This is common in mathematics, but nothing like what I said. You completely missed the mark here and that first statement in this post is entirely false.

The second statement uses the 'appeal to authority' fallacy despite a lack of relevance. The common casual use of words is not what we are discussing, see above.

The third part is irrelevant as well, as you never presented a body of evidence, I don't need to assume anything, if you haven't offered evidence and presented the idea as just a thought you've had without a body of evidence, then that's how it should and will be treated. If you feel that you have a large body of evidence to back it, and a way of showing that it is consistent with what we've seen, go ahead, I'd be interested to see it.

As for the fourth statement, judging by responses since this post, I'm not sure this is the case.

As you alluded to, many words have multiple definitions - I merely used the word 'theory' in a way that you disapproved of.

 

Just because you refuse to recognise a definition does not mean that it is incorrect, it merely means that you believe your knowledge of lexicography to be superior to that of the compilers of the OED.

In this post you basically repeat the appeal to authority fallacy and ignore the discussion I presented about the difference between casual usage and what words are meant to mean. Again, think of literally, the OED entry says it all.

I don't remember using the word 'literally'.

 

I take it that you do know the meaning of a straw man argument?

Here you take a break from using appeal to authority to call an example a strawman, there is a very big difference, but this has already been discussed in detail.

Again, a very limited and restrictive definition of a straw man argument.

 

You appear to need to eradicate nuance within your linguistic constructs. I wonder if your statistical training has given you this need to apply very strict ‘rules’ to language in order make it fit into your own paradigm?

You seem to suggest that I did in fact use a strawman argument. I'd like you to explain where I used this supposed strawman, as it doesn't appear to be there.

Then you go for personal attacks. Fantastic, although I've already answered this post in more detail.

Long story short, your argument can be summarised as two key points:

1. You feel that if your definition is good enough for the OED, then it's good enough for this context

2. You feel that any reasoning against (1) is a strawman for reasons that you've not explained

[Albert]

If you have a problem with definitions I don't think you should use "unilaterally" like that...

 

Whilst the defintion would (broadly) allow for it you would need to be directing that accusation at more than just Albert...

 

But if Albert used "literally" in place of "figuratively" I will reach my influence (I'm Batman) down under and slap him...

Literally or literally (as defined by the OED)?

[cheron85]

Literally or literally (as defined by the OED)?

 

• In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
• Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.

If you are using the 2nd I will Bat-slap you...

[Albert]

• In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
• Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.

If you are using the 2nd I will Bat-slap you...

I am literally using literally in a literal manner as defined by the OED.

My theory is that you're literally not going to Bat-slap me because I'm literally using literally as literally is defined.

[cheron85]

I am literally using literally in a literal manner as defined by the OED.

My theory is that you're literally not going to Bat-slap me because I'm literally using literally as literally is defined.

 

Full Marks then...

 

Unless you're using the second definition... which is horrible... and I will figuratively Bat-slap the hell out of you...

[Albert]

Full Marks then...

 

Unless you're using the second definition... which is horrible... and I will figuratively Bat-slap the hell out of you...

Figuratively or figuratively?