Wordplay - Gauke

Gauke - verb; to distort esp politically; after David Gauke a UK politician

1. "Mr Gauke said he was prepared to put the national interest ahead of his own, showing his firm determination to gauke the term national interest."

2. "In order to make political capital Mr Corbyn has gauked his long-standing position on the EU."

3. "Mrs May had to resign after attempting to gauke the meaning of the word leave in her Brexit negotiations."

Wordplay - scientism

from Tom Swanson's science cartoons

scientism Pronunciation: /ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m/

Definition of scientism

noun

[mass noun] rare

thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

One of the great myths of the modern age is scientism, a belief or assumption that the scientific method is applicable to everything. Yet ironically enough, scientism itself isn’t a scientific belief in that it can’t be proved experimentally.

Okay, that’s obvious enough and overt scientism isn’t all that common, but what about covert scientism? Even more intriguing, what about areas of study which are traditionally regarded as science, but where the scientific method doesn’t work particularly well? Why doesn’t it work particularly well – why is it incomplete?

What’s missing?

There are plenty of examples of subjects which seem to lie on the borderline between science and non-science. Economics, psychology, sociology – are they sciences or not? Or are they businesses? Does it matter anyway? Maybe it doesn’t.

What about climate science? Do we know whether or not the climate will give up its secrets to the scientific method? So far it hasn’t, but what if it never does? How will we ever know? The climate hasn’t responded very well so far, but maybe the science is young. Or maybe science just doesn’t work on something as complex as climate.

What’s missing?

What if a natural phenomenon such as climate is too complex for the scientific method? Well to uncover the answer to that question, first we’d surely have to admit we’d failed. But when and how? Scientists very rarely admit failure because science is supposed to be all about try, try again.

But isn’t try, try again just a little too convenient – for scientists? In fact - don't some scientists build careers on try, try again? 

 So how then are we supposed to assess scientific failure? How are we supposed to know we’ve failed? Usually it’s when a better theory comes along, but what if one never does? For how long does try, try again go on?

Until the funding runs out may be the honest answer. Until then, never admit defeat, think of another angle, get some more funding for a bigger computer. But climate scientists can’t do experiments on the climate, so they never get to do proper science where they might actually test a theory with an experiment. How convenient is that? Especially for those with a long-term career in mind.

Bad science can be a sound career choice. Feyerabend was right – scientists are opportunists.

Wordplay - sustainable

It's a slippery, weasel word isn't it - sustainable? As you can see from Google's Ngram Viewer, It began sneaking into common parlance from about 1960, but didn't really take off dramatically until the mid-eighties. According to oxforddictionaries.com, this is what the word means.

Pronunciation:/səˈstānəbəl/
adjective

• able to be maintained at a certain rate or level:sustainable fusion reactions
• conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources:our fundamental commitment to sustainable development
• able to be upheld or defended:sustainable definitions of good educational practice

Yet in most cases, what we want to know is not whether something is sustainable, but whether it is actually sustained. If I cut down trees in a forest but don't plant more trees, then the wood comes from a sustainable source, but not a sustained source. My felling policy on the other hand is not sustainable, although it might be if regrowth occurs naturally and my rate of felling is no greater than the rate of natural regrowth.

All very picky I know, but why are we so casual about these things even where they supposedly matter? 

Because sustainable is a political and marketing word I suppose - where sustainable ambiguity is the game.

Wordplay - empathy

A recent paper published by the Association for Psychological Science tells us that empathy doesn't cross the political divide. In other words, we have more empathy with people who share our views than those who don't.

Crikey!

I don't know about you, but when I read stuff like this I wonder if I chose the right career. Do they have to study anything before being set loose - such as a dictionary? Because surely their conclusion has been common knowledge throughout recorded history. I bet the Neanderthals knew all about it.

I have absolutely no empathy with people like this.

Wordplay - clie

One day when all the climate change nonsense has blown over and we can get on with demolishing the next batch of global lies, a few tattered remnants of battle may well creep into our lexicon and nestle there for a while.

So maybe we’ll add a new word or two. How about clie? Etymology - climate lie. It could be future slang for a manipulative lie. Children, instead of being accused of telling fibs, will be chided with telling a little clie.

Now don’t tell clies, Mum or Dad will say – you know you’ll be found out.

Well you never know – stranger things have happened to our venerable language. The term settled science for example. That was a real humdinger of a clie.

Wordplay - logic

Aristotle - from Wikipedia

What is logic?

Well I for one find it a rather odd business, this mish-mash of ideas we call logic. Aristotle made a start with his syllogisms, but over two thousand years later logicians tried to turn it into a game of symbols and rules so they could run off with it and build careers. Electronics engineers build computers with it, while politicians and climate scientists never use it at all.

The online Oxford dictionary defines logic as:-

noun

[mass noun]
1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity:experience is a better guide to this than deductive logicthe logic of the argument is faulty

• a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference:Aristotelian logic
• the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
• the quality of being justifiable by reason:there seemed to be a lack of logic in his remarks
• (the logic of) the course of action suggested by or following as a necessary consequence of:the logic of private competition was to replace small firms by larger firms

2 a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.

• logical operations collectively.

So logic is, within certain boundaries, a move in the argument game, a rather feeble prop we use in whatever way seems most convincing.

Yet it seems to me that logic has more to offer if only we explore  its possibilities, loosen it up and reconnect it with the real world. This is what Spinoza tried to do, but Newton came along and distracted us with his mathematics and mechanistic science of cause and effect. I can't help thinking we could have made more of logic and less of Newton's science, so in future posts I'll make a tentative attempt to expand a little on what might have been.

Wordplay - pedantry

Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3rd edition 1766 defines pedantry as:

PEDANTRY
Awkward ostentation of needless learning.

I like the neatness of Johnson's definition, but pedantry is also one of life’s many tactics, a way of attacking change, of closing down other possibilities beyond the status quo. It is a way of being right without really trying, a way of analysing without contributing, a way to harass without having to engage.

But perhaps it is also a way of avoiding errors, going back to what we know rather than wandering off into a desert of colourful but sterile possibilities. As with many of life’s tactics, pedantry has two edges – constructive and destructive. Which is the most common though?

Wordplay - necrophilia

Wordplay - design

Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3^rd edition published in 1766 defines 'design' as:-

To Design, v.

1. To purpose; to intend anything.
2. To form an order with a particular purpose.
3. To devote intentionally.
4. To plan; to project.
5. To mark out.

Computers have been used as design tools since the early days of discrete transistors. Rolls-Royce used computers to design turbine blades before they actually thought of using them to do payroll calculations.

Computer-based climate models are really imaginary climate designs which have yet to be tested systematically in the real world. This is not so much a scientific issue as a question of language, but climate scientists tend to dive into the science before the terminology has been sorted. Yet the language is important and here, climate scientists are not the experts.

So referring to climate models as models is misleading. Climate designs is a better way to describe imaginary computer-based climates which haven't yet made it into the real world. Climate scientists may well be designing climate models and that's fine, but we shouldn't omit the word design - it's crucially important.

After all, these climate designs haven't even passed even the most rudimentary testing stage and climate scientists certainly cannot skip physical testing by comparing one design with another as if the whole process is akin to Strictly Come Dancing. Yet it's what they are trying to do with their so-called ensembles, another furtive misuse of language.

Yet it's all really obvious. If an imaginary computer-based climate design makes a 30 year prediction, then that is it's main design parameter, the physical test it must pass before it can be taken seriously as a climate model. In 30 years time it may pass the test and become a tested design or it will fail and become a failed design. Until then it is merely a design.

At the moment, computer-based climate designs are rather less real than Shrek, who at least seems to understands his own language.

Wordplay - move

From Wikipedia

Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3^rd edition published in 1766 defines 'move' as:-

To MOVE, v, n.
1. To go from one place to another.
2. To walk ; to bear the body.
3. To go forward.
4. To change the posture of the body in ceremony.

Movement is what the universe is all about - from Newton's laws of motion to the theory of relativity to quantum theory. Instead of cogito ergo sum, Descartes could well have opined moveor ergo sum - I move therefore I am. Maybe that wasn't philosophical enough for him, yet movement is more fundamental than thinking as Descartes really should have known. It's all about change - to change is to move, to move anything is to change something.

There is more to moving than simple physical movement of course, there is a complex social aspect too where movement and change fuse into one. We all have our own moves to make in the great game of life, taking this path or that, making this change or that. Movement is a compulsory fact of life. To die is to have no moves left in the locker, not even the faintest expression of regret.

So looking back on our lives to date, how many of us think we made the right moves? Would we play them differently if allowed to play the game again, especially now we've had a better look at the book of rules? Because that's what life is all about isn't it? Winners and losers, good moves and bad moves, moves made from habit, moves we've learned too well, moves that no longer work as well as they once seemed to.

Is there time to work out some better moves, or does the whole game slowly slip from our grasp? Like a Victorian automaton, do we keep playing the same moves over and over because we have nothing better?

Are most of the real moves made by others? Is the state looking over our shoulder, moving for us, fiddling with the rules - the compulsive kibitzing of the micro-manager?  Or is it time to stop thinking and just get on with the game before it's too late? Before the Last Move - the final checkmate.

Wordplay - exponential

Typical BBC cut'n paste item trying to make political capital from what is happening in Somalia. Apart from the sheer ghastliness of those who dream up this kind of opportunistic unpleasantness, it really is worthwhile using an online dictionary sometimes. I suggest the word 'exponential' is one worth looking up here.

Wordplay - conspiracy

Johnson’s dictionary 3^rd edition published 1766 defines conspiracy as:-

CONSPIRACY
1. A plot; a concerted treason. Dryden
2. An agreement of men to do anything; evil part.
3. Tendency of many causes to one event.

People still conspire as they always have. How we view it and describe it tends to depend on whether we are inside, outside or uninvolved. Governments describe their conspiracies as 'consensus' or 'seeking consensus', as if it might be some noble quest. The promotion of consensus over conspiracy has been so successful, that it is now seen as a little outré or unsophisticated to fall into the social trap of espousing conspiracy theories.

Yet governments conspire all the time, as do institutions. It's what they do, what they have always done, how they evolve new ways of protecting their tribe, new ways to promote their tribal interests. To deny or ridicule the idea of active conspiracies seems to me to be no more than another conspiracy, yet another way for the great to conspire against the small. Which is what they have always done anyway.

Wordplay - computer

Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3^rd edition published in 1766 defines 'computer' as:-

COMPUTER [from compute]. Reckoner; accountant.

Today of course, we use digital computers to compute - to do what was once done by hand and mind. Similarly, computer models do what we tell them to do - what we could still do by hand and mind if given an impossible amount of time.

Computers and computer models don’t do science - that's what we still do, the hand and mind stuff. We frequently do it very badly of course, but we can't blame computers for that, however powerful they may be. 

Wordplay - mystique

Mystique is a probing word, a word to lay bare the spurious spirit of things, to highlight that which isn’t really there, the complex, subtle surface of the masquerade. The paint we apply to the outside world, a false gloss that betrays our history, culture and conditioning, betrays too the strength of these things, their freedom to mould our lives.

Mystique is superstition, charisma, culture and charm. It is the image of anything from politics to cars, from the sanctity of holy places to the bouquet of fine wine to the iconic status of celebrities. It is tradition. National, religious, cultural or scientific - even the tradition of football clubs.

Mystique is the authority of doctors, the gravitas of bishops and the pompous airs of dodgy scientists. It is patriotic and partisan and gives a warm cosy glow to a sense of belonging. Mystique is chic. It is funky clothes, a famous friend or modish points of view. It thrives on the fear of exclusion, the raised eyebrow and endless veiled subtleties of the need to belong.

Mystique is shared values where one must never quite say what those values really are, what they imply. It is the culture of profession and trade, religion, science and political party, teenage gang and multinational company. Mystique is the brand and the packaging, the word and the phrase and anything to do with status. Without mystique we confront things as they are. Within mystique we confront nothing. We merely give our consent to a coercive and corrupt call to cast aside our right to disbelief.

Wordplay - epicure

As is well-known, the word epicure comes from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus  (341 – 270 BC), now fairly synonymous with the word ‘gourmet’, although there is a more pejorative sense of an addiction to sensual enjoyment, particularly in earlier usage. It is perhaps less well-known that both of these usages have their roots in anti-Epicurean propaganda, an ancient determination to discredit, suppress and distort a powerful and remarkably modern philosophy.

Almost all of what Epicurus wrote is now lost, but we have enough fragments and references to form a pretty good idea of his philosophy. Ironically, Epicurus himself was something of an ascetic who ate frugally, drank mainly water and valued friendship above worldly goods and desires. He taught that our ultimate aims in life should be to live without anxiety, to cultivate friendship and ignore the gods, for he argued that the gods cannot conceivably be affected by what we do and therefore cannot possibly have any interest in us. He also taught that atoms are the fundamental, indivisible building blocks of the universe, that what we see around us is made of combinations of atoms and that there must be an infinite number of worlds, not merely the one we humans happen to live on.

The suppression and distortion of Epicurus’ teachings is one of the great philosophical tragedies, probably accounted for by what he said about the practical irrelevance of the gods. Our use of the word 'epicure' is a reminder of our loss.

Wordplay - rhetoric

Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3^rd edition 1766 defines rhetoric as:

RHETORICK

The act of speaking not merely with propriety, but with art and elegance.

The power of persuasion; oratory

The spelling has changed since Johnson’s time and the meaning has shifted somewhat too, acquiring a distinctly pejorative tone. For example – the argument is mere rhetoric, not worth switching my ears on.

Johnson understood perfectly well that argument is about winning and rhetoric is by far the most useful tool you have. He was determined to win any argument, once admitting he’d argue against his own beliefs simply for the intellectual pleasure of winning.

Now that science has a tenuous, but rapidly loosening grip on our notions of truth, we have come to regard rhetoric as a slick, question-begging device, only fit for politicians and other charlatans. Yet rhetoric is easy to slip into isn’t it? It’s easy to take sides in an argument with the hope of winning, or at least coming out on top. Easy to cite untrustworthy organisations, dodgy scientists, partial data and cherry-picked statistics, easy to use them as rhetorical devices. Merely to win, to be on the winning side, the side with the most powerful, the most fashionable, most rewarding rhetoric.

A good word to inform our susceptibilities I’d say.

Wordplay - silly

The word silly has changed its meaning over the centuries. It is derived from the old English word seely meaning blessed or happy. By the eighteenth century its meaning had changed significantly. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary 3^rd edition published 1766 defines silly as:-

SILLY

1. Harmless; innocent; inoffensive; plain; artless.
2. Weak; helpless.
3. Foolish; witless

Fifty years later, Jane Austen used the word in its modern sense in her novel Persuasion. She used this one word to convey a good deal of information about a character, Sir Walter Elliot. Through that one word we immediately know something of the man – well before Austen chooses to enlarge his character.

“Three girls, the two eldest sixteen and fourteen, was an awful legacy for a mother to bequeath, an awful charge rather, to confide to the authority and guidance of a conceited, silly father.”

Jane Austen – Persuasion’

Still a good word for modern times I'd say. 'Silly' is a quiet, not overly offensive word, perfectly equal to the task of conveying a decent load of gentle contempt for those many inanities we encounter in daily life. So well fitted to the absurdities of  too many social and political trends.