It’s good to have _accurate_ answers but words do carry multiple meanings, depending who wields it.

It’s good to have _accurate_ answers but words do carry multiple meanings, depending who wields it.

If you have a conversation and one person says:
“Science is a methodology used by humans for discovering truth-value utilizing evidence, duplication… etc” and whips out a flow-chart..

and the other person says, 

“Well, Science is trying to clone children!”

The conversation won’t get very far: NOT because one is using an accurate definition and the other an inaccurate definition but because each will stick to their own definitions of Science and not budge.

*Is* Science trying to clone children? 

Well, in a sense, yes. If one *representative* that is _within_ a field of the Sciences is working on human cloning, it’s _not entirely wrong_ to say, “Science is trying to clone children”.

It’s equivalent to saying, “Religion kills people because ISIS killed someone”.

It’s _not entirely wrong_ but it’s an attitude that *could* use some fine-tuning until reaching a consensus.

But then again, so can the precise definer. By NOT recognizing the validity of the other person’s statement, conversation because difficult or impossible, especially when hosts of other factors come into play like stereotyping and such.

You -could- just say “you’re using the word Science wrong” and walk away. 

Technically valid? Sure.

But it’s stopping short of a full conversation. Concerns _can_ be addressed with precision and care and working with someone until each understand each other.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 6 = seven

Leave a Reply