>>>
>>>Still trying to get in a blow from that debate huh ? Sigh, if you check
>>>you'd see that we were not referring to technical terms developed within a
>>>specialised field in maths or science which aren't in general use, but to
>>>the definition of "film" - a term in general use.
>>>
>>>The rest of your argument, apart from being confused, is therefore
>>>irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>>I'm sorry, I really don't see the distinction. Perhaps you could explain
>>yourself more clearly.
>>
>>j. daigle
>
>Where scientists or mathematicians use existing words they usually give
>precise definitions of the new, limited, technical sense in which they
>propose to use them.
>Those seeking to define "film" are not usually proposing some more
>restricted, technical sense of "film;" they are seeking a general
>definition which will account for the existing variety of things commonly
>referred to as "films". If the definition rules out some obvious examples
>of what are normally referred to as "films," it will be inadequte as a
>general definition.
>
>Clear enough ?
>
Actually, no, I'm more confused then ever. Isn't philosophy a field of
academic inquiry?
Lets say that a scientist, oh, one hundred and fifty or so years ago coins
a term (film). What he means by film, what the rest of the world
understands him to mean, is a thin, transluscent substance derived from a
chemical process. "To make a film" is to create this thing that the word is
coined for.
Now we use the word several years later to refer to the end product of
something that is shot on a particular TYPE of film... we would agree, I
assume, that this is a correct use of the word "film?" Its certainly viable
within the culture. But the word itself was developed as a technical term,
so I remain confused about how this is dissimilar from the following:
"Differential" was also developed a long time ago to define a particular
mathematical operation and its associated concept (you know, the infinitely
small slice). Now someone else uses the word to refer to a different idea,
one in philosophy, a bunch of other people start using it that way too. Why
hasn't the definition of "differential" changed such that a bunch of
linguists writing a dictionary could now have:
Differential: 1, noun (math): that thing Newton was talking about. 2.
(philosophy) that thing Delueze was talking about.
In fact, there are 9 defintions in My OED (eighth edition, concise) for the
word differential. 1(a) ADJ or NOUN: of, exhibiting, or depending on a
difference. So the pro's have decided that this word is not IN and Of
neccesity a technical term restricted to calculus. Why then, can Delueze
not borrow this existing, non-technical term and give a precise definition
in a new, limited, technical sense?
j. Daigle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|