peter selinger tells me that i viciously attacked tom leinster. i would like to apologize for that appearance. i do not know tom, and had no intention to address his post more than any of the previous 200 posts about terminology. tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom. and i guess maybe i should say sorry to all that i blew up. but i still think that it is a pity, and curious, that the best minds of category theory don't have better things to do but to generate volumes of email about words. before i disappear, let me add two things. 1) the meanings of words evolve away from their origins, just like bat's wings and seal's flippers evolved away from their ancestors' legs. the original meaning of the word "word" was "promise". but people are ignorant, and the meaning changed. if people start using the word "schizophrenic" to describe a type of shoes, or a sexual orientation --- that will in due time become the meaning of that word. that is how languages work, if you don't mind. 2) proscribing some words for reasons of political correctness is often patronizing. let us protect the weak by using the name of their weakness only very very carefully, and with a serious face. because we are stronger, so we should protect them. (and also use the opportunity to tell everyone else what to do.) once upon a time, black people used to be called the n word by some white people. and what did black people do? yes, they wrote many petitions to guardian pleading for good style and political correctness. but since that somehow didn't work, they took the offending word and made it into their own authentication token. they made music from it. and the white people from whom the n word originated were left wordless. please lets make category theory and let language live its life. -- dusko [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Dusko Pavlovic wrote:
tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom.
No problem. I understand that posts about terminology get tedious, but I do actually think this matters. Mental health organizations constantly have to fight misconceptions about mental illness. Those misconceptions can do real harm to those who are ill. Schizophrenia as "split personality" is one of them. For example, Mind, a well-known British mental health charity, says: There is more media misinformation about schizophrenia than about any other psychiatric diagnosis. It's not true that schizophrenia means 'split personality' Many websites on mental health contain statements along similar lines; a few links are below. We have the freedom to choose any term we like for the mathematical concept. We can do a small good thing by not choosing a term that perpetuates a damaging myth about a serious psychiatric disorder. Best wishes, Tom Links: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/schizophrenia#danger http://helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm http://healthmad.com/mental-health/seven-myths-and-misconceptions-about-schi... http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_6112881_common-misconceptions-schizophrenia.html http://overcomingschizophrenia.blogspot.com/2008/09/common-misconceptions-ab... [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
Concerning terminology one more opinion exemplified by this example: I think that it is a VERY BAD HABIT to attach a mathematical meaning to words that have a comun use in every-day language, which come together with all sorts of connotations. Like "schizofrenic". Somebody proposed "schimatic", and I find this a good choice: 1) it is erudite and etimologically justified 2) it sounds right 3) (and more important). It is not a word known in everyday language. For example, I did not know it (neither in spanish, english or french). So, when I would see "schimatic" in a math text, I would say "what the hell does it mean ?", and look at the mathematical definition. Then I will know, and "schimatic" will have attached from now on only its mathematical meaning. I suggest that when in need of a word for a mathematical concept, to look at the LATIN language, which is a DEAD language, so no problems. And furthermore, it has a long tradition for scientific names. (and plurals "topoi" for example ja! sorry Peter) e.d. Tom Leinster wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Dusko Pavlovic wrote:
tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom.
No problem.
I understand that posts about terminology get tedious, but I do actually think this matters. Mental health organizations constantly have to fight misconceptions about mental illness. Those misconceptions can do real harm to those who are ill. Schizophrenia as "split personality" is one of them. For example, Mind, a well-known British mental health charity, says:
There is more media misinformation about schizophrenia than about any other psychiatric diagnosis. It's not true that schizophrenia means 'split personality'
Many websites on mental health contain statements along similar lines; a few links are below.
We have the freedom to choose any term we like for the mathematical concept. We can do a small good thing by not choosing a term that perpetuates a damaging myth about a serious psychiatric disorder.
Best wishes, Tom
Links: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/schizophrenia#danger http://helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm http://healthmad.com/mental-health/seven-myths-and-misconceptions-about-schi...
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_6112881_common-misconceptions-schizophrenia.html
http://overcomingschizophrenia.blogspot.com/2008/09/common-misconceptions-ab...
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
participants (3)
-
Dusko Pavlovic -
edubuc -
Tom Leinster