Misunderstood concepts/phrases that make me crazy

[Dave Muscato]

I'll start.

"Begs the question" - For some reason, people think this means "this question needs to be asked," to quote a friend of mine. The example she gave, when I asked her what she thinks it means, is, "If someone says, 'I colored my hair pink,' that begs the question, 'Why?'"

Folks, begging the question is a specific type of logical fallacy, also known as circular reasoning. Begging the question specifically means that you are trying to use something as proof for an argument that depends on a previous, as-yet-unproven premise being true.

For example, if Person A says, "God is virtuous," and Person B says, "How do you know?" and Person A responds, "Because the Bible says so," and Person B says, "How do you know the Bible is correct?" and Person A says, "Because God wrote the Bible and God is never wrong," and Person B asks, "How do you know God is never wrong?" and Person A responds, "Because truthfulness is a virtue, and God is virtuous." *That* is begging the question.

People use this logical fallacy all the time in casual conversation and in debates, and there is a common and valid use for the phrase. However, merely saying something that simply invites a follow-up question is NOT "begging the question."

Argh.

[fenderhutz]

Too much coffee today?

[peterbright]

Or not enough.

[FL Knifemaker]

That's deep man I have a headach must from pondering it

[StanFan]

It bugs me when I hear "I could care less" when someone means to say "I couldn't care less".

[Valerus]

Haha.

Um...does "I could care less" count?

Dangit Stan, beat me to it. lol.

[Dave Muscato]

I don't drink coffee

Here's one: Evolution as a theory. Without getting into the hot-button side of it, "theory" in this sense does not mean a belief, as commonly used in every-day English. A scientific theory means something that has been verified with facts and observation, or something that's testable with experiments and the scientific method. A theory, in this sense, does not mean a speculation or a gut-feeling.

Gravity is a theory, too. When we drop something, it falls to the ground. We observe this and have an explanation, which man invented, to account for what we observe, a hypothesis. The scientific method is applied and we look for ways to prove that hypothesis false, adjusting as we go until we find a hypothesis that accounts for all or nearly all observed happen-stances.

It is *possible,* though unlikely, that we will discover something that shows our theory of gravity to be false. It is so well supported with evidence that we call it a law of nature, but due to the nature of the scientific method (disproving hypotheses), it cannot be *proven,* so it's technically a theory.

I just realized that this, too, is a logical fallacy (equivocation). Just because the English word for "theory" is used both in the sense of a scientific theory and to mean a conjecture does not mean that all theories are conjecture.

So, I guess I'm really just saying that people ought to make an effort to be logical, and educate themselves a little better.

-- I readily admit that I'm just a musician, and anything and everything I say may be incorrect. If I've said something questionable or wrong, please correct me --

[fenderhutz]

Well there are things as proven and unproven theories but they are theories all the same.

[Dave Muscato]

Originally Posted by timmbass

I do not agree. Theory means that it has not been tested and found to be factual in a repeatable manner. Law means that it has been and can be tested in a repeatable manner. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a law.

Merriam-Webster disagrees:

"[A theory is] a working hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis but not conclusively established or accepted as a law..."

"Experimental evidence" would seem to mean it's been tested, and the "experimental" part implies that this evidence can be obtained repeatedly.

Also from Merriam-Webster:

"[A law is] a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions..."

Seemingly, this just means that a law is just an explanation beyond reproach, as far as we know. No mention of having been tested or even the ability to test it, and new evidence can be discovered at any time disproving it.

It's my understanding that laws are just theories that are very widely accepted by most or all credible experts.

Granted, Merriam-Webster Unabridged is not a scientific dictionary, but it's pretty well respected as a reputable consensus of definitions for English words.

Citations:

"theory." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Jul. 2008).

"law." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Jul. 2008).

[Dave Muscato]

LOL, didn't meant to scare you away, timm!

Back on topic:

Apostrophes in English are another terribly misunderstood concept, I think. I don't see what the big deal is.

There are only two reasons to use an apostrophe. First, when you are expressing ownership or possession: Mom's car, Julie's lunch, Massachusetts' highways.

Second, if you are abbreviating: Don't replaces Do not; Gov't replaces Government.

The exception is "its." Because "it's" can mean either "belong to it," or "it is," the form without an apostrophe is used for expressing possession or ownership ("The dog wagged its tail"), and the form with an apostrophe is used for the abbreviation ("It's going to be a hot day today").

If a word ends in "s," the apostrophe goes after the "s" when using one in the first sense, and there is no need for a second "s."

"All clock's on sale" is incorrect. Clocks is simply plural; no apostrophe is needed.

"Tomato's for sale," bizarrely, is correct, but confusing. This could be better written as, "Tomatoes for sale."

There is one other use for apostrophes, but it's rare, and I think this might be the reason people get confused with apostrophes and plurals. When indicating a plural of a lowercase *letter,* an apostrophe is used. For example, "There are two t's in 'rattle.'" Other plurals, including uppercase letters, do not get an apostrophe.

My biggest pet peeve regarding apostrophes is probably the "decade debate."

When writing "the sixties" numerically, this is correct: The '60s. You can tell because this is an abbreviation (short for The 1960s). The "s" makes it plural, but not possessive. The only time you would use an apostrophe between the "0" and the "s" is if you are indicating possession for that specific year. For example, "United States presidential elections occur quadrennially; 1960's election between JFK and Nixon was hotly debated." The election belonged to the year 1960, so an apostrophe is appropriate.

I'm just frustrated because I went to public school, and learned this in 3rd grade, yet I see these kinds of errors from professional journalists daily. What gives?

[Jared Lash]

Well, I've mentioned these before, but if we're talking misunderstood concepts, I think they fit:

(1) Humans only use 10% of their brains. Nope, not true.

(2) Water drains in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. No, it doesn't.

[Scarlet Fire]

Originally Posted by TheBigO

(1) Humans only use 10% of their brains. Nope, not true.

You're right, it's not true, but there's actually a very interesting reason why this myth keeps being spread around.

The brain is composed primarily of glial cells which outnumber neurons by almost 10 to 1. So, you could make the argument that 10% of our brains are composed of neurons, and that is the 10% that we're using.

Either way, both interpretations are totally wrong. We use all of our brains constantly. We're just not consciously aware of it.

[TheDarkReaver]

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

I don't drink coffee

Here's one: Evolution as a theory. Without getting into the hot-button side of it, "theory" in this sense does not mean a belief, as commonly used in every-day English. A scientific theory means something that has been verified with facts and observation, or something that's testable with experiments and the scientific method. A theory, in this sense, does not mean a speculation or a gut-feeling.

Gravity is a theory, too. When we drop something, it falls to the ground. We observe this and have an explanation, which man invented, to account for what we observe, a hypothesis. The scientific method is applied and we look for ways to prove that hypothesis false, adjusting as we go until we find a hypothesis that accounts for all or nearly all observed happen-stances.

It is *possible,* though unlikely, that we will discover something that shows our theory of gravity to be false. It is so well supported with evidence that we call it a law of nature, but due to the nature of the scientific method (disproving hypotheses), it cannot be *proven,* so it's technically a theory.

I just realized that this, too, is a logical fallacy (equivocation). Just because the English word for "theory" is used both in the sense of a scientific theory and to mean a conjecture does not mean that all theories are conjecture.

So, I guess I'm really just saying that people ought to make an effort to be logical, and educate themselves a little better.

-- I readily admit that I'm just a musician, and anything and everything I say may be incorrect. If I've said something questionable or wrong, please correct me --

a big, big +1 there.

[Jared Lash]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Fire

You're right, it's not true, but there's actually a very interesting reason why this myth keeps being spread around.

The brain is composed primarily of glial cells which outnumber neurons by almost 10 to 1. So, you could make the argument that 10% of our brains are composed of neurons, and that is the 10% that we're using.

Either way, both interpretations are totally wrong. We use all of our brains constantly. We're just not consciously aware of it.

I actually think it came from a study that showed that at any given time, only 10% or so of our neurons were active. Which makes sense depending on what task our brain is undertaking, whether its trying to remember a phone number, putting together a bookshelf, writing song lyrics or anything else there are very different regions of the brain being incorporated to differing degrees.

[werbo1]

On the apostrophe thing...

You can use the second S, such as its Chris's desk.
AND If the word is a regular plural; i.e. you add an s to it, then, under no circumstance, can you use the second S... eg: The moms' vans.

[Mark Latimour]

The difference between a change in absolute values versus a change in rate. Here's an example from another thread:

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Okay, simple explanation. Think about the accelerator pedel in you car and your speed.

You currently driving along at 100mph with your foot to the floor accelerating at 10mph/h such that in a few moments, if you keep your foot on the accelerator, you will be going 110mph. Instead, you take your foot slightly off the gas so that you are accelerating at 5 mph/h such that in a few moments you wil be going 105mph.

You are still going just as fast as you were before, infact, your speed has increased from where you started, you are going 105mph instead of 100mph.

Has taking your foot off the accelerator had an effect? Of course, it has slowed your rate of increase.

You often see people making the claim that XYZ has had no effect on ABC because the number of ABC per year have gone up. However, they inevitably forget to check whether there has been a slowing of the rate of ABC.

[scootron]

I'm with you here 100% Dave, but toward the end there you confuse the apostrophe with the quotation mark. It is the quotation mark which is horribly abused in our writing, especially in our informal writing and our signage, much to the chagrin of the discerning reader. It especially haunts my daughter, an English Literature student who just returned from Oxford.

You see numerous examples (especially advertising signs) everywhere, segregating things in quotation marks which have no business being in quotes. My daughter recently showed me a website dedicated to exposing and combating the problem.

I would mention one thing, though. Single quotation marks (resembling the apostrophe) have long been used properly to indicate the problematic nature of he subject matter between them. (Some writers call them 'snicker quotes'.) This is a long honored tradition that still holds a place in formal and academic writing as well.

But thanks for exposing the misuse and overuse of quotation marks, truly one of my greatest pet peeves.

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

LOL, didn't meant to scare you away, timm!

Back on topic:

Apostrophes in English are another terribly misunderstood concept, I think. I don't see what the big deal is.

There are only two reasons to use an apostrophe. First, when you are expressing ownership or possession: Mom's car, Julie's lunch, Massachusetts' highways.

Second, if you are abbreviating: Don't replaces Do not; Gov't replaces Government.

The exception is "its." Because "it's" can mean either "belong to it," or "it is," the form without an apostrophe is used for expressing possession or ownership ("The dog wagged its tail"), and the form with an apostrophe is used for the abbreviation ("It's going to be a hot day today").

If a word ends in "s," the apostrophe goes after the "s" when using one in the first sense, and there is no need for a second "s."

"All clock's on sale" is incorrect. Clocks is simply plural; no apostrophe is needed.

"Tomato's for sale," bizarrely, is correct, but confusing. This could be better written as, "Tomatoes for sale."

There is one other use for apostrophes, but it's rare, and I think this might be the reason people get confused with apostrophes and plurals. When indicating a plural of a lowercase *letter,* an apostrophe is used. For example, "There are two t's in 'rattle.'" Other plurals, including uppercase letters, do not get an apostrophe.

My biggest pet peeve regarding apostrophes is probably the "decade debate."

When writing "the sixties" numerically, this is correct: The '60s. You can tell because this is an abbreviation (short for The 1960s). The "s" makes it plural, but not possessive. The only time you would use an apostrophe between the "0" and the "s" is if you are indicating possession for that specific year. For example, "United States presidential elections occur quadrennially; 1960's election between JFK and Nixon was hotly debated." The election belonged to the year 1960, so an apostrophe is appropriate.

I'm just frustrated because I went to public school, and learned this in 3rd grade, yet I see these kinds of errors from professional journalists daily. What gives?

[scootron]

I don' know if this counts, but the post hoc fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) always kills me. It seems as though is used to screw up the lives of the fuzzy thinking public, but not it seems to have become one of our fundamental tenants of national policy.

[Joe Nerve]

Ahh, a home for my gripe. I've been getting bugged lately by people saying, "At any rate...". What the hell does that mean? They throw it anywhere...

I was washing my car yesterday, at any rate... we went out to eat afterwards.

I love playing bass... at any rate, I'm going to stop writing now.

[scootron]

Dave, here's a link to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks.


http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/