|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:49:48 -0800
William Edward Woody wrote:
>
> In article <3209F217.4B06@megafauna.com>, steve@megafauna.com wrote:
> > If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said he was EITHER ignorant
> > OR contemptuous of it. You're saying he was ignorant of it because it
> > hadn't been uncovered yet. Fine. Or maybe there was some other reason
> > he didn't use it. That's fine too. The point is that *he didn't use
> > it*, and that caused him to make some really bad mistakes.
>
> Ignorance is a negatively charged word. I wouldn't say that Aristotle was
> ignorant--that suggests that he could have easily uncovered the
> experimental method, but for some reason (perhaps due to stupidity)
> he did not.
>
> Sorry; 'round the parts where I haunt, "ignorant" suggests a value
> judgement, as opposed to the phrase "did not know", which does not.
>
> For example, if I said someone was "ignorant" of QM, that person
> may get pissed at my negative suggestion; if I said that person
> "did not know" QM, it'd be a completely different issue.
>
> - Bill
>
Gee, I wasn't aware of the fact that saying that someone who has been dead for
over 2000 years was ignorant of the experimental method was going to be so
offensive. My apologies to Aristotle and all his kin. When I meet him at the
pearly gates I hope he doesn't hold it against me.
Now if he had ever bothered to actually check whether heavy objects fall faster
than light ones I wouldn't be having this problem.
Steve Barnard
|