-DM-

Revision 1.1:

---------

There are basically two kinds of word definitions::

1.) Descriptive (based on usage, the way that the words are commonly used).
2.) Prescriptive (tending to be based on stable historical usage, word etiology, what is acceptable in formal writing).

It is, to some extent, the same with dictionaries. They tend to be either descriptive or prescriptive.

Generally, a dictionary will tell something of the philosophy of the editors in the introduction to the dictionary itself. Descriptive dictionaries are the norm and prescriptive dictionaries the exception in the same way that glass is the norm and crystal the exception.

If a dictionary were purely descriptive, it would provide no real sense of what is stable usage and what is likely to disappear by the next edition.

Some academic presses require their editors to use the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary which is more prescriptive than, for example, the Random House Dictionary. Further, Webster's generally lets you know when it is being descriptive by means of citations and usage paragraphs.

[The original source of information for this discussion courtesy of Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor, via the Internet]

--Don--

-DM-

Comment
------- --

[This is an opinion statement only. Feel free to disagree.]

If people are NOT using the words according to dictionary definitions -- whether descriptive or prescriptive (and remember, descriptive is the norm) -- then they are likely wasting their words in the sense that many or most people will not know what the hell they are talking about.

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves. In discussions here with theists, I too often find that -- after a very lengthy and involved repartee back and forth -- that they were defining their words in some quirky way that means upfront that they "win" except that there was no way of knowing that upfront. It wouldn't make it any better if it were the other way around, i.e., if a nontheist were guilty of the same.

People need to use words according to their common meanings or else explain upfront exactly what they mean. Further, there is no use completely redefining words to the point that the definition in use doesn't resemble common meanings; if I say that nighttime is the period from sunrise to sunset and that daytime is the period from sunset to sunrise, that doesn't make it so and the discussion becomes confusing (to take an extreme example).

Regards,
--Don--

sentinel00

All of them, but not all at the same time. It would depend on the context; how the word is being used.

copernicus

Thanks for the invitation, Don! I disagree. Dictionaries sometimes do a good job of getting definitions right, and sometimes they do a poor job. A lot depends on the expertise of the staff. I know some renowned lexicographers (and lexicologists). If there is one thing that they all agree on, it is that word definitions are partly a science and partly an art. Every dictionary contains errors. Not many laymen know this, but some dictionaries also contain a bogus word or two (as a ploy to catch competitors who plagiarize their work). Some lexicographers tend to create many different word senses for the same word, whereas others will condense slightly different definitions into just a few word senses.

The point about words is that we all use metaphors, figures of speech, and plays on words. Dictionaries can't possibly capture all of the nuances of linguistic usage. What I suggest in the case of Koyaanisqatsi's usage is that it be accepted for what it is--a rhetorical implication that the difference between different established religious sects and so-called "cults" is a specious one, based on nothing more than social convention. Some people will take offense at that rhetorical device, and some won't. We can probably all agree that it is a genuine expression of heart-felt disrespect for established religions. That is, we all really understand what he is getting at, because we all share the same understanding of what "cult" means.

If we start to get upset about the non-literal (non-Dictionary) use of language, then most conversations that we hear every day are going to upset us. Philosophers in the tradition of Wittgenstein, Austin, Grice, Searle, etc., have dedicated their careers to the subject of just how perverse and complicated word usage can be. Most of us are unaware of how "deviant" language can get until someone starts disputing the novel usage of a word or expression, unaware of just how normal that is.

Koyaanisqatsi

Not to interrupt, but I think I've clearly defined precisely what I mean when I apply the term.

Can we get back to me being an insensitive bastard who doesn't give a rat's ass about Kenny or Kenny's beliefs now please?

The Loneliest Monk

copernicus,

I would imagine that practically everyone that reads Koy's posts would agree that he is using the term "cult" as a rhetorical device. And it is certainly not surprising that some would be offended since that is the intent all along. And if he wishes to imply that people like MLK and Alvin Plantinga are in the same category as David Koresh, he can certainly do so. By the same token, anyone else is free to point out that such claims are so much nonsense.

Of course if anyone has any information that Alvin Plantinga is busy stockpiling weapons in a compound somewhere and playing guitar in a cheesy rock band, I will naturally withdraw my remarks.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

David Gould

I assume that your stockpiling weapons idea is tongue in cheek - the stockpiling of weapons is not included anywhere in the definition of a cult.

Koy points out the sameness between the indoctrination methods of the entities that are commonly called cults and the indoctrination methods of those entities that are commonly called religions. He also demonstrates the similarities between the way they muddy the waters for those seeking the truth or otherwise of their claims.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's a duck.

I would like to know: what charachteristics of a cult (let us use the Branch Davidians as an example) does the Mromon Church not have? What about the Catholic Church?

I think Don's quoted definition is a great one, by the way...

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]</p>

Kenny

I see you missed the last meeting. Plantinga plays a mean guitar. Try to show up every once and a while, okay! Sheesh, do you want to be one of us or not?

The Loneliest Monk

David,

One distinct characteristic that the Branch Davidians possessed which Mormons and Catholics do not was a high level of tension between the group and the rest of society. I believe that this is one of the criteria that social scientists use to classify a group as a cult. Catholicism and Mormonism are too widely accepted for the necessary tension to exist. The Mormons could probably have been qualified as a cult at one time, but the group has grown too large and too accepted in order for the term to apply. The Wolfe definition does a pretty good job of capturing this aspect of cults actually. Also, while my weapons remark was certainly tongue in cheek, one could argue that the Davidians's weapons stash was a result of the level of tension between them and society.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Once again, The Loneliest is demonstrating exactly what I've been talking about.

Perfect example. I went to great pains to specifically state that I did not consider or imply that they are in the same "category" as individuals, rather that the similarities are only in the fact that they are both cultists.

Address the goddamned specifics of my posts if you please!

Kenny, do you now understand from whence my frustration and therefore acerbic tone came?

The Loneliest took me to terms, which I took great pains to detail as specifically as possible so that there would be absolutely no misunderstanding of my points and he just ignored all that in order to conflate an accusation against me.

Then he goes into redirection through generalized declarations:

I am not using the term "cult" as merely a rhetorical device, but, again, I wouldn't want to effect your imagination in any way. It is the correct term to be used and I defy you to find an example where I have used the term incorrectly.

Now a false, unsupportable accusation:

It is not my intent as I have explained again and again and again. The "intent" is to use the proper terminology to, as David Gould so eloquently (if incongruously) put it, "call a spade a bloody shovel."

If you had read my post you would have seen exactly what my intent was since I spelled it out in great detail, but you decided to just ignore all that and falsely accuse me again of something I am not guilty of in order to, I suppose, cast pious aspersions upon me and my character as an evasion tactic away from having to deal with the specifics of my legitimate use of the term.

Do you see me lodging a formal complaint, however?

No. Instead I am addressing every one of your relevant observations and offering detailed counter-refutation in the hopes that you will address the arguments directly instead of this childish bullshit (this is from your next post; redirection through unsupportable arguments from assumed authority):

Not to get into the centuries of "tension" the Catholic cult has inflicted on the world or the conflicts over the Mormon cult's rather unorthodox marriage doctrines forcing them to annex Utah, the Branch Davidian cult was not necessarily causing any tension at all within the Waco community according to the two documentaries I've seen, but that's not the point. You are doing exactly what I said before without addressing my argument; demonizing one cult as "unorthodox" and supporting other cults as being comparatively "orthodox" based upon nothing at all other than your say-so, without ever establishing what it means or why we should just take your word for it.

There is no fundamental difference between any of these cults--they all indoctrinate through inculcation and fear based on the same ancient Middle-Eastern warrior-deity mythology--and the fact that, as you argue, "the majority" of people in this country don't recognize that they are all cults is all the more reason to properly use the term across the board and without prejudice, IMO.

Since you have yet to demonstrate that I am misapplying the term in favor of false accusations and unsupportable assumptions, I can only take your posts as indirect concession to my point.

One could also argue that they had no "stash," merely an inventory, since they were Texan gun dealers just as legal as Charlton Heston tells us is the case.

And he played Moses.

So, The Loneliest, what have you offered us in just these two posts? Redirection, disingenuous conflation and redefinition of terms in order to falsely accuse me of committing a crime I did not commit, evasion from offering direct counter-refutation of my points and unsupportable arguments from assumed authority.

Accordingly, my response is, once, twice, three times a lady, please demonstrate--not just make unsupportable claims--how I am misapplying the term "cult," or be a mensch and concede that my use of the term is legitimate and, barring the establishment of a non-spurious orthodoxy that all cult members who post here follow without deviation, correctly applied.