Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[jkdesq]

I only used those two events to show what happens when objectivity fails and an agenda enters in to science. Not that they actually have anything to do with language.

Don't reach for what isn't there. :grin:

When science entered into the debate? What is your point? What does the Scopes Monkey trial or any branch of science have to do with the definition of "skirt" or "kilt"????

You're grasping at straws.

[Kilts_Knave]

When science entered into the debate?

Language is Science

I believe when it was said language is a science. Language is a tool of science, used to test and retest hypostheses. [Linguistics is a science because it studies the acquistion and the construction of language.]

This would rather be like saying a shovel is science, because a shovel is used as a tool in archaeology (although not necessarily). The construction of something, such as a shovel, is definitely a science --it is engineering. Any process, such as kilt-making (i.e. contruction) is a science. Is language a process or the result of process? [To say language is a process therefore language is a science: this would be the basis of saying language is a science, Dreadbelly. First we need to prove language is a process, and that scope is too broad for this forum. I don't know, I am not a linguist.]

But based on soley what I know know, I will say that whether or not a kilt is a skirt would have to be determined by those who construct kilts, the scientists who actually go through that scientific process, the kiltmakers. They all have ideas, hypotheses about what a kilt should look like, from research (i.e., retesting hypotheses of others); and, they reconstuct kilts based on this that they learn from history. They test and retest to ensure their products are in-line with what the historical model tells them.

I just seems to me that this discussion is based solely on semantics. Nothing of value can be concluded in a discussion based on semantics, there are just too many defintions for too many words, and a false dilemma inevitably develops.

Again, the only people who could possibly resolve it are those who know firsthand about the scientific process of kiltmaking-- and that it the kiltmakers. We should appeal to the authority of these who know best. And until kiltmakers begin referring to themselves as skirt-makers, I am inclined to think that a kilt is a bloody kilt!

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

...The construction of something, such as a shovel, is definitely a science --it is engineering. Any process, such as kilt-making (i.e. contruction) is a science....
But based on soley what I know know, I will say that whether or not a kilt is a skirt would have to be determined by those who construct kilts...

Kilt_nave, I agree that kiltmakers really are the ones that defien what they call a given garment, and I also agree that they follow a process to create that garment. However, I don't think that I would call following that process science.

[bubba]

However, I don't think that I would call following that process science.

Kiltmaking is, imo, a mix of craft and art, not science. As for language, it doesn't only evolve, it gets mangled and mutilated as well through common usage. Just look at what's happened to the word gay over the years. That's just the way English is. It swipes words from just about every other language, alters meanings almost on a yearly basis, incorporates slang and jargon into the base language and adapts constantly. If someone wants to think of a kilt as a skirt that's not wrong under English usage, but those that don't see a kilt as a skirt aren't wrong either. Logic has nothing at all to do with the whole debate, it's entirely viewpoint and laguage usage.

[jkdesq]

Amen Bubba

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Kiltmaking is, imo, a mix of craft and art, not science. As for language, it doesn't only evolve, it gets mangled and mutilated as well through common usage. Just look at what's happened to the word gay over the years. That's just the way English is. It swipes words from just about every other language, alters meanings almost on a yearly basis, incorporates slang and jargon into the base language and adapts constantly. If someone wants to think of a kilt as a skirt that's not wrong under English usage, but those that don't see a kilt as a skirt aren't wrong either. Logic has nothing at all to do with the whole debate, it's entirely viewpoint and laguage usage.

Da**, go away for 2 hours to drive home and have dinner and there are 50 new posts!
Bubba, I think that you have hit on the crux of the matter. Regardless of which meaning or authority you ascribe to, logic has nothing to do with it.

Disclaimer: I reserve my right to change this opinion after I read the rest of the posts if somebody has a better argument!