29 Feb '12 17:56>
Originally posted by jaywillIf you had followed me, you would agree with me. Its not a grey area. Its very straight forward. If you still disagree, then you are not following.
Following you may not be agreeing with you.
I think stupid is probably attempting to propose that scientific definitions are not science. They are a part of the body of scientifc knowledge.
Definitions are not knowledge. Definitions are a way to communicate knowledge. You need to think of definitions as nouns. The word 'jaywill' is a noun. It refers to you as a poster. It isn't knowledge. If a noun refers to a 'scientific' object, say 'atom'. The word 'atom' is not knowledge. It is not science. It is a noun used in science.
"Updated" .... "corrected" ... ?
Copied from the Free Dictionary:
Yes, I know you know how to play word games. I am sure however that you got my point, you are just stubborn.
Nope. I think probably any known definition of stars - it communicates.
Which is not what you said earlier - to which I was responding. There really are no other standard definitions that could be used in the sentence given, so it would have to be an unknown definition.
It communcates. I see no reason to remain totally "clueless".
Because you have forgotten what you posted. Go back and read it. Its not that far back.
I think as in the case of "planets" the informed intelligent reader would consider WHEN the stand alone sentence was written.
I'm sure they would. They might also take into consideration the fact that it was written in a different language then translated. But assuming the translation is accurate, I think it reasonable to think that the writer was referring to what we now call 'stars'. But he probably didn't know what they were as we do today.
As far as it being a calamity and rather unnatural. It communicates. That is if you want to be communicated TO.
But it only communicates 'calamity' if you take the literal meaning for 'star'. If you change it to 'fairy dust', it takes on a whole new meaning.
Specifics may be an issue of detail. Generally, why would one be clueless ?
If you don't know what a key word in a sentence means, you will be clueless. Isn't it obvious?
Even if it were "movie stars" falling from the sky, it is communicated that a calamity is taking place which is disturbing and out of the ordinary.
No, it isn't. Movie stars falling from the sky might be seen as something to celebrate. What if it was chocolates? What then?
Any further puzzlement can be cleared up by the surrounding context.
But how can you trust the surrounding context? You are suggesting that we cannot trust the meanings of words. Or are you only wanting to change one word because it makes your religion look bad? Will you be changing all other words that make your religion look bad, or only this once?