From the article: Yet another misleading binary. We would love things to either be true or not, but often the world doesn't cooperate. Also:
From the article:
Even the word immunity creates confusion. When immunologists use it, they simply mean that the immune system has responded to a pathogen—for example, by producing antibodies or mustering defensive cells. When everyone else uses the term, they mean (and hope) that they are protected from infection—that they are immune. But, annoyingly, an immune response doesn’t necessarily provide immunity in this colloquial sense. It all depends on how effective, numerous, and durable those antibodies and cells are.
Immunity, then, is usually a matter of degrees, not absolutes. And it lies at the heart of many of the COVID-19 pandemic’s biggest questions. Why do some people become extremely ill and others don’t? Can infected people ever be sickened by the same virus again? How will the pandemic play out over the next months and years? Will vaccination work?
Yet another misleading binary. We would love things to either be true or not, but often the world doesn't cooperate.
Also:
The immune system’s reaction to the virus is a matter of biology, but the range of reactions we actually see is also influenced by politics. Bad decisions mean more cases, which means a wider variety of possible immune responses, which means a higher prevalence of rare events. In other words, the worse the pandemic gets, the weirder it will get.
Thanks for this word. A bit of a tangent, but it seems like a good word to bring up when talking about racism. People often pick just one of institutional racism and interpersonal racism and label...
polisemy
Thanks for this word. A bit of a tangent, but it seems like a good word to bring up when talking about racism. People often pick just one of institutional racism and interpersonal racism and label it as "racism". I've seen many arguments and discussions run off course because of this confusion.
Some philosophers believe that many of humankind’s disagreements and dilemas are largely problems of meaning that would be greatly alleviated with more precise language.
Some philosophers believe that many of humankind’s disagreements and dilemas are largely problems of meaning that would be greatly alleviated with more precise language.
Interesting. Are there any human languages that are notably more/less precise than others? Do speakers of those languages tend to get along better or worse? I suppose not since the limiting factor...
Interesting. Are there any human languages that are notably more/less precise than others? Do speakers of those languages tend to get along better or worse? I suppose not since the limiting factor of precision is in the brain of the speaker more so than the language they're speaking.
That’s a deep rabbit hole to get in and I’m not a philosopher! I recommend this: https://iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/ I personally doubt very much that there’s many philosophy about which language is...
I personally doubt very much that there’s many philosophy about which language is more suitable for truth—you’re more likely to encounter a distrust for certain uses of language in general.
You may find better answers to your particular question in linguistics.
From the article:
Yet another misleading binary. We would love things to either be true or not, but often the world doesn't cooperate.
Also:
Maybe also an example of too much polisemy. Sometimes we do need one word for each thing.
Thanks for this word. A bit of a tangent, but it seems like a good word to bring up when talking about racism. People often pick just one of institutional racism and interpersonal racism and label it as "racism". I've seen many arguments and discussions run off course because of this confusion.
Some philosophers believe that many of humankind’s disagreements and dilemas are largely problems of meaning that would be greatly alleviated with more precise language.
Interesting. Are there any human languages that are notably more/less precise than others? Do speakers of those languages tend to get along better or worse? I suppose not since the limiting factor of precision is in the brain of the speaker more so than the language they're speaking.
That’s a deep rabbit hole to get in and I’m not a philosopher! I recommend this: https://iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/
I personally doubt very much that there’s many philosophy about which language is more suitable for truth—you’re more likely to encounter a distrust for certain uses of language in general.
You may find better answers to your particular question in linguistics.