Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:10:40 -0500

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu said:
> In article <yU7Od.16139$mo2.1277440@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Jason" <jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> writes:
> >> > I am already familiar with your jargon.
> >>
> >> Jargon is a pejorative term. Say instead, technical vocabulary. Every
> >> art and science has a technical vocabulary proper to its nature and
> >> scope. I use simon-pure standard mathematical terminology which can be
> >> found in every paper and treatise on the subject.
> >>
> >> Mathematicians write to be understood by other mathematicians so a
> >> standard technical vocubular and lexicon is used. If you do not wish to
> >> learn it, that is your choice and problem, not mine.
> >
> >I think the point is that we're
>
> Who's 'we'? Pretensions of royalty here?
>
> >trying to speak English here, or at least most
> >of us. I'm guilty of it sometimes, but I try not to use jargon
>
> Technical vocabulary
>
> > where I don't need to. You don't need to use jargon
>
> Technical vocabulary.
>
> >with the concepts so far. It was clear
> >to me that people were asking for definitions, not a new jargon
>
> Technical vocabulary.
>
> >term. People can too easily hide behind jargon.
>
> Technical vocabulary.
>
> The question of what technical vocabulary to use, in any specific
> area, is best left to the people actively involved in said area. If
> and when you, as a layman, find some of the terminology unclear, feel
> free to ask for explanations. That's all.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
"technical vocabulary" - is that self-referential? 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages