View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Starer is an Anugram, not an Aptagram.

Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Wordsmythologic
1159729.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:36 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Sorry - you're caught up in your own circular argument which is along the lines of "both moon-starer and astronomer mean the same thing provided you dig deep enough to discover that astronomers look upwards but don't look deeper to discover that they don't all look at the same thing.

Therefore provided you restrict your depth of study to that which makes them appear the same they are the same". You're also trapped in a logical falacy of claiming that as B is a subset of A all of A must be the same as B, which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny whether logically, semantically, mathematically, ecumenically, legally or psychologically.

If you actually want to discuss/debate this please go ahead, but if all you're ever going to do is say "you are wrong because I am right regardless of any evidence or argument that might call this into question" then don't bother.

PDR

Actually, I'm not caught up in circular logic. I'm conveying logic that you're failing to understand, despite my best efforts to explain it to you in clear terms. I know full well what circular logic is and, not only is the supposed example of circular logic that you gave not an example of circular logic, I make well sure to not fall prey to logical fallacies.

Both "moon starer" and "astronomer" mean the same thing, provided you avoid digging deep into pedagogic interpretation of verbiage and just look at the face value meaning they both convey. They both convey the idea of an individual who makes observations of celestial bodies. That is the semantic meaning expressed and shared by both, and it is blatant, and I fail to see how you've, in any way, refuted or disproved that. You are the one guilty here of saying you're right because you said so. I am responding very clearly to each point you are making and soundly undoing them in a way I had hoped you'd pick up on. What you are doing is delving into excessive minutiae, arguing about irrelevantly strict definitions and your interpretations of the words, and it does not pertain to the discussion in any constructive or meaningful way.

I've not once said that all astronomers look at the same things. That claim doesn't even make any sense, and if that's what you've inferred from what I've said, I strongly urge you to reread my commentary, because you've suffered a severe lack of comprehension.

I've not restricted the depth of study so that they appear similar. I've pointed out the massive overlap in the Venn diagram between "moon starer" and "astronomer", in their most basic meanings. You're the one using strict definitions. I've being as general as possible, which, as I've demonstrated, is the only way to discern anugrams from aptugrams that does not lend itself to total voiding of the concept of anugrams altogether.

I've not used the logical fallacy you assert me to have used. It's actually a fallacy that you used yourself when you seemed to imply that all astronomers are not "moon starers" because not all of them look at moons. You implied that, since non-moon-staring astronomers are a subset of astronomers, that all astronomers are the same as non-moon-starers. That was your mistake not mine. And if that wasn't your intent, than all you said was, essentially, "the astronomers that don't look at moons don't look at moons".

My claim is that, since astronomers, as a whole, include people who look at moons, that it is a true statement that astronomers look at moons. Note that that is not the same as saying that ALL astronomers look at moons. You've entirely misunderstood that. It's akin to me saying that fishermen use bait to catch fish. They do. It's a fact that they do. Not all of them do, but, as a whole, it is a blatant truth that fishermen use bait to catch fish.

Therein lies your failure to understand logic.

Once again... Astronomers look at many things in the sky. That includes moons. Astronomers do look at moons. That is an inherently factual statement. It would be a false statement to say that astronomers do not look at moons, which is a statement you've come disastrously close to making yourself. And it would be exactly as untrue to state that all astronomers look at moons, but that is a claim nobody has made.

As for standing up to scrutiny, I've demonstrated your own arguments are veritable sand castles in a flood, and that you've lost any foothold you may have had with which to call into question the veracity of my statements.

If you actually want to discuss or debate this, then I recommend that you read what I've already outlined and respond to it instead of your misapprehension of things I've never said.

And, just so you know, I'm not saying you're "wrong because I am right regardless of any evidence or argument that might call it into question".

I'm saying your wrong, for all the reasons I've already enumerated. You are wrong, because I've demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, why what you are claiming has no relevance to the definition of anugrams versus aptagrams, is based in the very logical fallacy that you mistakenly thought I used, and is demonstrably flawed. If you refuse, still, to acknowledge this, that is your prerogative, but seeing as I've responded several times to you and explained thoroughly the facts relevant to this discussion, you've no sound reason to, and you've yet to cede a hair, while I've only refuted that of which you said that has so readily lent itself to refutation and ceded several points you've made, e.g. that it may very well be an insulting phrase to use in lieu of the professional title, that the statement you made that non-moon-staring astronomers, as you say, do not stare at moons, even that "most" astronomers "study stars, stellar motions, dust clouds, gas clouds and extra-solar cosmic events", which is a fact I readily admit I do not have sufficient knowledge to refute, nor do I have reason to suspect it of being false in the first place, . I only refute that which is demonstrably false, because it is false, demonstrably.

Here are the facts:
1.) An aptagram is an anagram wherein there is a comparison of an idea to a new idea, where the comparison is a fitting one, usually humorous.
2.) An anugram an anagram wherein there is an instance of similarity of semantic, not necessarily literal, meaning. Note that, linguistically, "semantics" does not mean strict dictionary definitions; it simply means "meaning", and the basic underlying meaning that is conveyed is what is relevant.
3.) "Astronomer" can be arranged into "moon starer", and is therefore an anagram.
4.) Both those phrases have an obvious overlap in the meaning intendedly conveyed therein, and are, while not perfectly synonymous, though they do not have to be to qualify as an anugram, reasonably interchangeable while retaining the intended meaning of the other. For example, if I had a friend, let's call him Leopold, who was an astronomer, and I were asked what his profession is, and I said "moon starer", almost anybody could gather his profession from the use of that phrase, regardless of what specialization within astronomy is his.
5.) This overlap in meaning categorizes it as an anugram.

There is no logical fallacy in that list of facts. The specificity of the fields of study and veritable Schr÷dinger's selenology that comprise astrology as an entire scientific purview of understanding, do not enter into it and are only pedantry for pedantry's sake. The overlap in meaning that is conveyed in both "moon starer" and "astronomer" is sufficient enough to qualify it as an anugram, as opposed to an aptagram, because neither phrase expresses new information; it only expresses the information of the other phrase in alternate wording; perhaps not in a complete sense, but in, absolutely, sufficiently enough of a sense.

The definition that the term "anugram" has is one that qualifies "moon starer" to be one of "astronomer". That is the fact of the matter, as expressed as many times as I have already. If your problem with this is that "moon starer", in the overcritically literal interpretation of its meaning you choose to employ, does not accurately of fully encompass the specifically chosen connotations of the word "astronomer" that you've decided it should carry, then I can do nothing to sway that qualm, but, nevertheless, that qualm has no bearing on what qualifiers exist for anugrams.

It's obscenely demagogic, and a delineation that exists irrespective of the fact that both phrases have an obvious overlap in the very basic meanings they each convey, yet you refute this as if I'm comparing apples to the first edition of Willie Nelson's autobiography. They are more than similar enough in meaning. I get that you don't like it. You are, in no capacity, obligated to be any degree ecstatic at the prospect of this information. But the pedantry with which you express your disquiet is not something that alters the definition of what an anugram is, nor what anagrams the category comprises.

I have already admitted that it is certainly a gray area, and there is room for debate, but the points you are making are not the ones that actually enter into that debate. There are far better reasons, than those you've given, as to why it may not be an anugram. You could say that "moon" is too vague and could, as suggested in the episode in question, refer to a person's posterior. That meaning, at its basic face value, disqualifies it. You could say that "moon starer" doesn't have to mean somebody looking at actual moons. Perhaps the person in question collects lunar photographs, and, in no way, makes any actual attempt to observe the moon in a focused sense. But even those don't actually negate the anugrammatical sense that already exists. Perhaps the fact that the semantic meaning underlying the phrase needs to be stated, and that it might not be immediately apparent, means it's too flimsy of a similarity for it to qualify. Those are reasonably qualms. Those deal with the actual substance of the matter at hand. Your qualms have not. Your qualms are about how many astronomers study moons and how rude it is to use words other than the professional title of an occupation to refer to it. Those things don't matter to anugrams. Your qualms have not, in even the most minute amount, dealt with the matters that actually matter, nor shaken the fact that "moon starer" is a perfectly viable anugram of "astronomer".

You're not wrong because I'm deciding to be obstinate. You're wrong because your statements have yet to meaningfully pertain to the thing you're complaining about. I understand your qualms, but I don't understand why you think they have any bearing on this. Plus, I'm responding, in detail, to all your points, because it is a rational thing to do when somebody calls into question something which I hold to be true. It's within reason to defend one's stance, and I am doing it by explaining everything that I can, in as much detail as I can. If you take an outlined response to everything you say to be telling you that you're wrong because I'm right, then you've willingly ignored every argument I've provided and chosen to interpret debate as myopia, and if that is the case, then perceiving the opposing side of an argument to be myopic, regardless of what they've actually said, is an attestation of real myopia. But I do hope that's not the assumption you've made, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've only misread or misinterpreted much of what I've written.

And to be clear, all that I wanted to do was to share something that I think is cool. I like wordplay, and am aware of many forms of it, and I was reminded of some specific types when watching the episode in question, so I thought I'd make a bit of an educational post in a lighthearted poke at Sandi's unknowing misuse of terminology. My intent was not to belittle astronomy in explaining which category it falls under.


Last edited by Wordsmythologic on Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:52 am; edited 2 times in total

 
ConorOberstIsGo
1159732.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:27 pm Reply with quote

tl;dr

ergo PDR has a point.

 
Zziggy
1159739.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:04 pm Reply with quote

No. "I couldn't be bothered to listen" never equals "you are wrong".

A ~ B

A ∩ B ≠ ě ⇒~ is anugram
A ∩ B = ě (or doesn't make sense)⇒~ is aptagram.

 
PDR
1159756.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:12 pm Reply with quote

Zziggy wrote:
No. "I couldn't be bothered to listen" never equals "you are wrong".


Depends whether the "equals" is logical or algebraic, surely?

Otherwise your use of "never" would make the expression simplify to:

"I couldn't be bothered to listen" equals "you are right"

...and I'm not sure that relationship is provable either.

I have briefly skimmed through the above response and as far as I can see the same circularity is being perpetuated, for example the statement about "an overlap in a venn diagram" seems to be suggesting a belief that:

If |A ∩ B| ≠ ě then A=B

Which is clearly dubious, so I didn't feel like allocating the required 30-40 hours to wading through the rest and addressing it point by point.

PDR

 
Zziggy
1159757.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:16 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
If |A ∩ B| ≠ ě then A=B

Ooh sir that's false sir, the cardinality of a set can never be equal to another set.

 
PDR
1159758.  Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:21 pm Reply with quote

That's kinda what I thought, but I make to claims to being even an apprentice algebrist.

I blame the schools and all these fundamentalist-led restrictions on sets-education. Venn else vill zay learn it?

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1159772.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:43 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I didn't feel like allocating the required 30-40 hours to wading through the rest and addressing it point by point.


You have to admit that that is quite an impressive wall of text. We haven't seen that around here since Bob started gainful employment.

 
PDR
1159777.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:18 am Reply with quote

Size isn't everything (except when wallpapering on old plaster).

PDR

 
Posital
1159783.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:46 am Reply with quote

ConorOberstIsGo wrote:
tl;dr

ergo PDR has a point.
QED

 
Wordsmythologic
1159788.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:47 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I have briefly skimmed through the above response and as far as I can see the same circularity is being perpetuated, for example the statement about "an overlap in a venn diagram" seems to be suggesting a belief that:

If |A ∩ B| ≠ ě then A=B

Which is clearly dubious, so I didn't feel like allocating the required 30-40 hours to wading through the rest and addressing it point by point.

PDR

You were the one who implied I was unwilling to discuss this. Yet, I fully addressed every flawed argument you gave, and you did not read it fully, nor are you willing, evidently, to spend the same length of time I put into responding to you.

No circularity is being perpetuated, and the fact you continue to insist that any is serves as a testament to your lack of understanding. I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what circular logic actually is, given your misuse of the term. I have not used circular logic. I have used extraordinarily simple logic, which I already have explained.

Saying that "astronomers look at moons" is not an identical statement to "all astronomers look at moons".

|A ∩ B| ≠ ě is enough in itself to define an anagram as an anugram if that overlap is the semantic meaning, which, in this case, it is. I've already said that they do not need to completely encompass all connotations of each other to simple have the capacity of expressing a shared meaning.

Implying that A = B thereafter does not enter into it.

A is anagram 1.
B is anagram 2.
C is a semantic meaning carried by an anagram.
D is the set of all anugrams.
E is the set of all aptagrams

C ∈ A
C ∈ B
∴ C ∈ (A ∩ B)
((A ∧ B) ∈ D) ⇒ (C ∈ (A ∩ B))
((A ∧ B) ∈ E) ⇒ (C ∉ (A ∩ B))
∴ (A ∧ B) ∈ D

 
PDR
1159810.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:21 am Reply with quote

You really want me to do this??

Wordsmythologic wrote:

Both "moon starer" and "astronomer" mean the same thing, provided you avoid digging deep into pedagogic interpretation of verbiage and just look at the face value meaning they both convey.


This is the core of the problem (most of the rest being window dressing and white noise).

You came on here to have a go at Sandi because her usage of the word "Aptugram" was inaccurate provided you dug deep into the pedagogic interpretation of verbiage rather than looking at the face value meaning that the word contained. But when others point out that your case depended on YOUR definition being strict and OTHER definitions being "Face value" you got upset.

The core of your case is that "If you accept my literal definition of Moon Starer and my liberal definition of Astronomer then they have identical meanings". The circular argument is that your case only holds within the bounds of your stated variations. You are saying:

Let A=1

Therefore A=1

True, but rather pointless and of no significant value to anyone.

The rest? Repetitious, involuted, testicularly verbose in places and generally in need of a good editor. I'm prepared to accept that there might be something with meaning in there somewhere, but no one is ever going to find it because it is completely smothered with pretentious diarrhoea and surplus verbiage.

If you want to be read then learn some conciseness and brevity. Learn to structure your thoughts and express the clearly - it will stand you in good stead.

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159824.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:36 am Reply with quote

Oh good, I was in the mood for a big hot steaming bowl of ad hominem, thank you for providing it.

PDR wrote:
You really want me to do this??

Wordsmythologic wrote:

Both "moon starer" and "astronomer" mean the same thing, provided you avoid digging deep into pedagogic interpretation of verbiage and just look at the face value meaning they both convey.


This is the core of the problem (most of the rest being window dressing and white noise).

That is not the core of any problem, because it is exactly the opposite of what I have said. You're reading what I've written and you're interpreting it as meaning entirely the opposite thing, which is nothing short of commendable. I've used no window dressing, nor white noise. You perceiving intelligent discourse as static is your own shortcoming.

PDR wrote:
You came on here to have a go at Sandi because her usage of the word "Aptugram" was inaccurate provided you dug deep into the pedagogic interpretation of verbiage rather than looking at the face value meaning that the word contained.

No, actually. I came here to share forms of wordplay of which I was reminded when Sandi used the wrong category for one. It was lighthearted, and I was not "having a go" at anybody.

Secondly, the delineation does not dig deep into pedagigic interpretation of verbiage rather than looking at the face value meaning that the words contained. It looks at the face value of the phrases rather than digging deep into pedagogic interpretations of verbiage. The entire point that "moon starer" is an anugram is due to the fact, which I thought was apparent to anyone, that all you have to do is look at it's face value meaning, compare it to "astronomer" as see the obvious shared meaning they have. I'm not using any strict definitions aside from those of "anugram" and "aptagram" themselves.

You're the one using strict definitions and chosen connotations of the words in each phrase. I am intently not using strict definitions and looking only at the phrases as a whole and pointing out the obvious overlap.

PDR wrote:
But when others point out that your case depended on YOUR definition being strict and OTHER definitions being "Face value" you got upset.

No, I've yet to get upset. Disappointed, maybe, that you're continuing to fail in comprehending these ideas, but my mood has yet to reach "upset".

And again, you've failed to understand that the entirety of the crux of what I've been saying is that I am intently not using strict definitions of the phrases in question. I'm looking at the most basis, straightforward meanings they convey and seeing the similarity you're not able to.

You've not pointed out what you claim to, because what you claim to be pointing out is something entirely antithetical to the point I've made. You've not understood it.

PDR wrote:
The core of your case is that "If you accept my literal definition of Moon Starer and my liberal definition of Astronomer then they have identical meanings".


Yet again, a testament to your inability to understand what I've said. The core of my case is "If you take the non-literal, basic meaning expressed by the phrase "moon starer" and the non-literal, basic meaning expressed by the word "astronomer", then they share a meaning."

I have, many times already, told you that I am stating, explicitly, that they do not have identical meanings, and also that they do not need to have identical meanings to qualify as an anugram, which is what they do qualify as.

PDR wrote:
The circular argument is that your case only holds within the bounds of your stated variations. You are saying:

Let A=1

Therefore A=1

True, but rather pointless and of no significant value to anyone.

No, that is not what I am saying, actually. If that's how you've read what I've written, you've read it wrong.

I am saying this:

Let set A contain x
Let set B contain y
x and y sufficiently overlap in what they convey to a reader.
A and B, while not the same, can be used to express the other reasonably well.

I am not saying "astronomer" means the same thing as "moon starer", I'm saying it conveys the same thing. I'm saying it means the same thing insofar as what each one means, at face value, is, in essence (not in literal definition), the same. And they are. They, both, are basically just people who look at the cosmos. That's not an untrue claim, and that is why it in an anugram.

A "moon starer" expresses, in it's most straightforward, general, nonspecific sense, somebody who observes celestial bodies. It does not even need to mean only moons, in the same regard "stargazers" look at comets and planets and the moon. It conveys, in its most general sense, a person who observes celestial phenomena. The same is true of "astronomer", especially given that a person can be an astronomer without it needing be their profession. Amateur and avocational astronomers exist in addition to those with degrees.

You are the one using pointless specificity. I'm using basic semantic meaning. And if I have to explain it again, "semantic meaning" does not mean strict fine-grain detail or dictionary definitions of specific words. In linguistics, semantics refers to all meaning.

I am taking each phrase at face value, and seeing the overlapping semantic meaning that they convey to a reader.

PDR wrote:
The rest? Repetitious, involuted, testicularly verbose in places and generally in need of a good editor.

It's repetitious, absolutely. That is intentional and in the hope that it will get through to you. Sadly, it has not. And again, your inability to understand what I've written is your own shortcoming. I am making effort to elucidate things, but it is, as of yet, to no avail. By the way, I am an editor, and I have read and reread what I wrote, edited it, and made sure it's not only grammatically correct, but factually correct. If you find it involuted, that's at the fault of your comprehension. And if there is a typo I overlooked, okay, I made a mistake in typing. That's not an argument, and I hope you're not actually using that to support yourself. I haven't pointed out the errors you've made, because it's not relevant to the facts.
I'm trying to address only what matters, but if you're going to attack me personally, instead of my actual arguments, it'll be difficult.

PDR wrote:
I'm prepared to accept that there might be something with meaning in there somewhere, but no one is ever going to find it because it is completely smothered with pretentious diarrhoea and surplus verbiage.

See, now you're just being petty and attacking me personally and the words I've used to express my point, which is ad hominem, not an argument against facts.

You're resorting to insult and you're not providing actual arguments. You can take issue with what wording I use, but it doesn't do anything to refute a thing I've said.

PDR wrote:
If you want to be read then learn some conciseness and brevity. Learn to structure your thoughts and express the clearly - it will stand you in good stead.

PDR

Unfortunately, I can't learn conciseness, nor brevity, because I already have learned them. I've used them before, but you've taken my use of them to be not supplying an argument. I've forgone them and you've insulted the fact I did. I also can't learn to structure my thoughts, nor can I learn to express them clearly, because I already have learned to do both. And I have. You're incapacity to intake that information is your fault.

And I outlined, clearly, in logical terms even, the reasoning why "moon starer" is an anugram of "astronomer", but your reply here doesn't make any attempt to argue against it.

You have not only failed to comprehend what I have written, you have interpreted it as the opposite of what it is. You have insulted my use of terse response, by equating it to me saying "you're wrong and I'm right", but you also choose to insult a thorough response to each point you provide, by calling it "pretentious" and "surplus verbiage". You do not care what I respond with, nor how I do so. Evidently, you care about being right more than about what is right, and about insulting facts that are in opposition to your opinion, more than about actually discussing the matter at hand. So I'm not going to dumb down my responses. If you're unwilling to read a long reply, you lose all right to respond to it.

"Moon starer" is an anugram of "astronomer", in accordance with the definition of the word "anugram". Neither phrase of the anagram conveys the literal meaning of the other exactly or completely, but that fact is not one that undoes its categorization, because an anugram does not need to be a completely synonymous pair of phrases.

One can say "moon starer" to mean "astronomer", and convey that meaning sufficiently, no matter how inaccurate you feel it is. One can say "astronomer" to mean somebody who looks at the moon, professionally or otherwise. These are facts you have yet to supply a counterargument for.

And since, evidently, you've not read it, here is the proof for the two phrases in question being anugrams of each other:

A is anagram 1.
B is anagram 2.
C is a semantic meaning carried by an anagram.
D is the set of all anugrams.
E is the set of all aptagrams

C ∈ A
C ∈ B
∴ C ∈ (A ∩ B)
((A ∧ B) ∈ D) ⇒ (C ∈ (A ∩ B))
((A ∧ B) ∈ E) ⇒ (C ∉ (A ∩ B))
∴ (A ∧ B) ∈ D

 
PDR
1159827.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:56 am Reply with quote

TL;DR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159829.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:00 am Reply with quote

Then you've lost any right to respond to it.

 
Zziggy
1159832.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:31 am Reply with quote

It's simple, if the anagram could be substituted for the original phrase and still be correct at least some of the time, then it's an "anugram".

If it couldn't be substituted in and be correct ever, but the original phrase and anagram are nevertheless linked in some way, then it's an "aptogram".

Assuming I've understood correctly.

 

Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group