Reply to comment
Only academics would argue about this :)
January 5, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 43 weeks 6 days ago
Comment id: 33618
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Let's see:
1. Language is for expression of thought or for establishing social relations.
2. The reason you want to express thought is what?
3. Oh, yeah, to communicate it with someone else for a variety of purposes, including both social and intellectual ones.
4. Conclusion: language is for communication.
So what's the argument about other than the usual academic propensity to find something to pick out in some other academic's work in order to elevate one's own? Semantic argumentation is the prime example of that approach, and this looks like semantics more than anything else.
I apparently spent wa-a-a-a-ay too much time in academe in my earlier life! :)
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)