spin

Be nice. Huon is a French speaker -- note the address --, so, when avi attacked him for following suit in the relevant thread and using the scholarly notion of "falsify", he was a little defensive about his use of a second language. If you've been in a similar situation you would understand. One native speaker says the word in English means X and another says Y, so you are left in a state of mild confusion. It's normal to work it out through what you know from your own language and try to contextualize it.

As to when "falsify" meaning to "show to be erroneous" was first used, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates that it was Late Middle English. The meaning "make fraudulent imitation; counterfeit, fake" is given as 16th-17th century. (That's an FYI for any interested party. )


spin

avi

Ganz im gegenteil.
Please accept my most profound apologies Huon, if you imagined that I was "attacking" you. Au contraire, I simply argue in defense of using ANY word, according to its
a. most logical and most commonly understood meaning, in the case of "falsify", this meaning is CLEARLY associated with fraud.
b. most readily understood meaning by NON-NATIVE speakers, such as Huon.

I would argue further, that, IRRESPECTIVE of any supposed date of origin for this word, the English language has LONG been a battle ground between the Germanic root of the language, and the French/Latin/Greek influence post battle of Hastings in 1066. The Roman occupation, a thousand years earlier, obviously ALSO impacted the language to some extent. I defer to French, whenever there is a question of interpretation of SCIENTIFIC vocabulary, for French, not German, is the ancestor of our English SCIENTIFIC vocabulary. Yes, English is a Germanic language, no doubt about it. However, it is a mongrel language, FILLED UP with exceptions, TERRIBLY difficult to learn, MUCH more difficult, for example than either Chinese or Japanese, to mention two VERY dissimilar languages, both of which are widely presumed, incorrectly, to be extremely difficult to learn, and a language which has assumed the character, unfortunately, of INTERNATIONAL standard of communication. A Brazilian, Japanese, Saudi, Pole, and Ethiopian, meeting together at an international conference are going to speak ENGLISH, NOT because of the superiority of English, as a language to learn, but for economic considerations ONLY.

My insistence that "falsify" should be used ONLY to represent situations involving FRAUD, is based exclusively on my opinion, that it is FAR more difficult for foreigners to understand ANY language, when that language uses bizarre, secondary meanings, instead of fundamental, primary meanings, to communicate ideas.

Some will argue, (and perhaps, even with history on their side, as spin has suggested, by his most recent post), that "falsify", HISTORICALLY, did have a BROADER meaning than just the narrow meaning which I apply: FRAUDULENT environment.

I don't honestly know the historical etymology of "falsify". Maybe spin is correct, and that in ancient times, or even in more recent eras, for example, in the 17th century, which, to my way of thinking is not so ancient, "falsify" meant DISCREDIT, but not in the presence of fraud. To me, an AMATEUR in the field of social sciences, "falsify" has invariably meant, to subvert, or to deprecate, or to illegally procure something. I think of someone FALSIFYING bank records. I think of someone falsifying TAX forms. Invariably, the NET result of this process is GAIN for the crook, and pain, for the rest of us. So,
"falsify", for me, conjures up images of deceit, deception, dishonesty, and UNNECESSARY turmoil. It DOES NOT conjure up, notwithstanding a "middle English ancestry", "DISPROVE", or "REPUDIATE". When I noted a difference of opinion with Huon, I was WONDERING, whether or not, he would respond, AS HE DID, by pointing out the FRENCH equivalent, i.e. from my point of view, as a francophile, the CORRECT interpretation, which also happens, by coincidence, to correspond to my own opinion, and to the opinion, of all the dictionaries.

I acknowledge that I erred in believing that no bona fide scientist would ever misuse "falsify" to represent the concept of repudiation absent fraud.

I will NEVER accept the notion that it is "correct" to employ ANY word, whether on this forum, or in normal conversation, which requires SPECIAL skill and knowledge, to comprehend. English has become, sadly, the de facto world standard, accordingly, we have a DUTY to employ vocabulary which conforms to a universally understood interpretation, not to some esoteric definition, which may or may not have ancestral roots predating the COMMONLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPAL meaning.

Yes, this forum uses English to communicate, not Chinese, not French, not Russian, not Arabic, etc, BUT, that doesn't mean, carte blanche for us to use words whose meaning is ESOTERIC, in the sense that ONLY native speakers could comprehend what one is discussing.

The analogy here is with Nomina sacra. Does CTO with a bar over it represent sigma tau alpha, abbreviating "stavros", i.e. "stake", OR, is it simply shorthand, written for convenience by the scribes, 1800 years ago, since in those days, "everyone" knows what CTO with a bar over it, means.

Transparency is the name of the game in COMMUNICATION. If we seek to encourage foreigners, who are LESS proficient than we are, with writing English, THEN, we ought to write, ourselves, with the SIMPLEST English, that will accurately express our sentiments. Too often, academics substitute vocabulary with a "hidden" meaning, in order to impress others with the breadth of their skill, but, in fact, all they accomplish is to drive away those with an interest in the topic, but an inability to comprehend the point of view expressed. Sticking to the primary definition ought to be the rule, unless there would then arise a conflict with one's analysis. In the present situation, that does not seem to be the case. Whether or not MM's hypothesis was/is refuted by the evidence from Dura, is not altered by changing the word from "falsify" to "refute". The problem with "falsify" in the case of MM's radical hypothesis, is that use of "falsify" invokes, AT LEAST SUBCONSCIOUSLY, a claim of GROSS error, which leads one to imagine that there IS some sort of FRAUD associated with Pete's presentation. By choosing a more neutral term, "repudiate" or "refute", instead of "falsify", one eliminates that incorrect supposition from the discussion. Pete's theory may be entirely wrong, but I do not believe that his theory is INTENTIONALLY DISHONEST, as is connoted by use of the term, "falsify".

J-D

PLEASE STOP SHOUTING AT US

It is extremely common in English (and, I suspect, in other languages as well) for a word to have more than one meaning. The word 'fast' can have more than one meaning, and as a result a sentence like 'The boat is fast' can have more than one meaning. It is true that this can sometimes cause problems for people who are unfamiliar with all the possible meanings, particularly people with a different first language, but I do not think this is adequate justification for an insistence on confining each word to its most common meaning only and banishing all other usage.

mountainman

Dear avi,

When I prepared an abstract I used the following terminology:

Now after seeing all this discussion I am no longer sure that the above statement is the best way of saying that the thesis rises and falls on its measure of consistency and integrity as a tool by which we may explain all the available the evidence and data .... particularly those issues which are still regarded as "controversies".

Nevertheless I enjoy reading your well thought out responses. If you dont mind me asking avi, do you have a background in physics, or in one of the branches of the sciences?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear J-D,

My computers (and most others here) have a volume control as a standard module and a user control and adjustment panel for the management and the administation of volume levels in discussion forums. If you can find it, why dont you take it for a spin around the block?

Best wishes


Pete

J-D

http://www.netalert.gov.au/advice/be...etiquette.html

avi

I appreciate your suggestion to employ fewer capital letter written words in my sentences.
My motivation for writing "LIKE THIS", instead of "like this", was two fold:

a. English, notwithstanding its many dreary faults, is, to a certain extent, a tonal language, in the sense that inflections in the voice, and changes in the rhythm can, in certain circumstances change the meaning of the otherwise monotonal composition. (For you J-D, I did not write "CHANGE the meaning.") If I had been addressing you, face to face, in other words, the intensity of my voice would have noticeably increased a few decibels, when uttering the word "change", in the sentence above. Nevertheless, I do acknowledge, that you are correct, and I am wrong, for having employed this convention TOO FREQUENTLY, in submitting my messages to the forum.

b. Greek, which I am only now beginning to discover, having skipped that crucial part of my education as a teenager, half a century ago, apparently ALSO was a rhythmic, somewhat tonal language, with a musical quality to it.

I am unaware of another method of conveying the intensity of one's speech pattern, in writing, apart from using capital letters. I will be glad to learn of a new method of communicating that parameter, from reading your link. Thanks for helping me to improve the readability of my verbose submissions. Terseness, especially QUIET terseness, is a superb accomplishment---a goal which has thus far eluded me.

:notworthy:

J-D

Italics, bolding, and underlining--in moderation.

Doug Shaver

OK. I should have looked, and I'm sorry I didn't.

I almost never do check a poster's residence because it's almost never relevant to whatever they have to say, and I seldom get curious for any other reason.