= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (770)
Thanks for the reply.
Wouldn't your argument apply just the same to any inflection of a term to have "ism"?
If you and I are arguing about whether wumpuses are red, and you think they are, is it a poor portrayal to refer to you as a "reddist"? Does that imply it's an ideology, etc?
What would you suggest would be a better term for ID proponents to use?
I presume someone who took this argument seriously would say that either a) that's its ok to use the term if they stop making ridiculous claims about ideology or b) suggest "mainstream biologists" or "evolution proponents" both of which are wordy but accurate (I don't think that even ID proponents would generally disagree with the point that they aren't the mainstream opinion among biologists.)
Do you expect that, in general, people should never use the form "X-ist", but rather, use "X proponent"? Should evolution proponents use "Intelligent Design advocate" and "creation advocate"?
If a belief doesn't fit an ideological or religious framework, I think that X-ist and ism are often bad. I actually use the phrases "ID proponent" fairly often partially for this reason. I'm not sure however that this case is completely symmetric given that ID proponents self-identify as part of the "intelligent design movement" (a term used for example repeatedly by William Dembski and occasionally by Michael Behe.)