Erin's Wonderful Word--admit

[Laurence Horn]

At 3:55 AM -0400 7/13/05, Stephen Goranson wrote:
>Quoting Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>:
>
>>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>  -----------------------
>>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>>  Subject:      Re: Erin's Wonderful Word--admit
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  >  >Did anyone else find the use of the verb "admit" in this definition just
>>  a
>>  >>little bit, well, presuppositional (which is not the same thing as
>>  >>pre-suppository)?
>>  >>
>>  >>  Erin's Weird and Wonderful Word of the Day:
>>  >>
>>  >>  dysteleology
>>  >>  [dis-tell-ee-AH-luh-djee]
>>  >>  the study of the organs of plants and animals without admitting that
>>  there
>>  >>is any purpose to their design. The antonym is teleology, studying
>>  >>things with
>>  >>the idea that there is a purpose for everything in nature. Someone who is
>>  >>unwilling to admit the existence of design in nature has teleophobia.
>>  >~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>  >How about "posit"?
>>  >A. Murie
>>
>>  or "grant", or probably a lot of other presupposition-free options,
>>  although the "unwilling" itself introduces a bit of bias.   What
>>  about a nice neutral phrasing, like "Someone who is capable of
>>  recognizing the absence of design..."?
>>
>>  L
>>
>
>Could be neutraler.

Yes, I realize that.  I was trying, in my second sentence, to come up
with a version even less neutral than (but in the other direction
from) the original.  I should have inserted a ;-).

L

>"recogniging the absence of design" resembles "recognizing
>the truth." "Grant" is a good option, I think. Aren't both views suppositions?
>How about "One who holds that..." or "The view held by those who
>hold that..."?
>
>Stephen Goranson