Re: Irredeemably tainted words.

Brian D. Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:50:07 -0500

At 11:24 AM 1/9/97 -0500, Loren wrote:
>
>
>I really enjoyed what Steve Jones wrote about "mediate creation," and I
>agree with much of it.
>
>But Steve's essay, and Jim's concurrence, on how the word "evolution" is
>tainted beyond redemption got me wondering. Why stop there? What other
>words are so tainted that we should stop fighting to redeem them from
>anti-theistic metaphysical baggage, and simply eschew their use?
>
>How about "mechanics" and "law"? Too closely associated with Deism and
>Mechanistic Determinism.
>
>"Chance" has got to go, obviously.
>
>"Behavior" and "conditioning" were ruined by the Behaviorists.
>
>"Logic" and "evidence" are too closely associated with Logical
>Positivism.
>
>And "quantum mechanics" has got too much of that New Age/Mysticism stuff
>in it these days.
>
>--

Loren, I agree that most of these words simply must go. My only
objection is "mechanics". This simply must stay, else I have to
find a different profession ;-).

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University