[mistermann]

Refute:

- To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof. "refute testimony."

- To deny the accuracy or truth of. "refuted the results of the poll."

- To repudiate.

Oh, the irony (and also in the summary of the book).

[zetsurin]

You are saying he doesn't prove it false?

[mistermann]

I'm saying: observe the broad range of epistemic territory covered by the word "refute" (the first definition is a blend of complete incorrectness and not absolutely perfect, the second is literally subjective opinion, ie: "at least one human holds this opinion"), something that seems rather untroubling to people (believing themselves to be) considering the truth of this theory. (See also if you can spot any other instances of this sort of thing in this thread, or all other threads).

I wonder how Westerners would react to a new word being invented that directly references this phenomenon, and I also wonder whether doing that would have zero effect on people's cognition (which is essentially what is being claimed impossible), especially if they were reminded of its existence every time the common habit of speaking ambiguously/meaninglessly arose.

Such a word would have to sustain substantial memetic attack though, cultural "truths" are usually defended passionately. I think the most that could be achieved in this culture and era is adoption in the counterculture scene.

As for whether he doesn't "prove" it false: which of the many conflicting meanings of the word "prove" (or "doesn't" for that matter) would we be using, and would it even be possible to achieve a demonstration of it, that people who despise taking the meanings of words seriously could agree on?

[TillE]

In America, refute = disprove.

In Britain, very commonly, refute = deny.

As with most ambiguous words, the intention is usually clear from context anyway.

[mistermann]

>In America, refute = disprove. In Britain, very commonly, refute = deny.

What "is" in a geographical area is a function of human cognition as it is in that area. When actual values are not available (like now), the mind supplies simulated values, and no notification that it has done that.

Some cultures have some insight into these matters/phenomena, some do not. Western countries tend to be in the second group, they consider (to the degree that they do, technically) such topics "woo woo". Consequently, they make the same error, over and over, and have no clue.

> As with most ambiguous words, the intention is usually clear from context anyway.

I agree that any given human agrees with their own personal opinion (what is "clear" to them).

[NemoNobody]

There are literally languages that depend entirely on context to ascertain the meaning of the words spoken bc the words mean many things depending on context.

Like, entire languages of read vs read - as in "He reads that" or "He read that" , context is part of a words definition

[mistermann]

This seems reasonable, but the relevance I cannot see, could you possibly explain please?

[zetsurin]

I was attempting to use it as "denies" (even though in reply i said "prove").

You seem to me to be taking the meanings of words so seriously that you've lost the value those words provide.

[mistermann]

> You seem to me to be taking the meanings of words so seriously that you've lost the value those words provide.

Do you believe this to be free of both error and irony? I don't intend this in a rude way, but as a purely intellectual undertaking - this is, after all, Hacker News, where intellectual curiosity is a thing, reputedly anyways.

[NemoNobody]

Yeah Bud, we all have different definitions for words in our heads that are based on our individual understanding and experience of reality - we have things like dictionaries to establish an agreed upon definition but few people actually know those definitions, they just have a functional understanding of what words mean.

We just pretend we all actually are operating with the Merriam-Webster definitions bc it's easier.

Words are just to convey ideas - if you can pickup what someone means contextually but you choose to ignore that and focus on incorrect word use, you've missed the point of communication

[mistermann]

> we have things like dictionaries to establish an agreed upon definition

I suggest you reread my comment, taking into consideration whether that is logically even possible in this case with the breadth of meanings attributes to this particular symbol.

>if you can pickup what someone means contextually

and

> you've missed the point of communication

If you missed the mark, would you necessarily be able to know?