minor quibble: the value of precision

[Thomas D. Cravens]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Stefan Georg writes:
 
>[snip]
>
>> But, *given* all those methodological/epistemological precautions -
>> and I feel they are pretty trivial - should we not be allowed to
>> call A and B "unrelated" (i.e. of course *heuristically* unrelated
>> *for the time being*) as long as we are not convinced of the merits
>> of any claim to the contrary which happens to be on the market ?
 
And Larry Trask responds:
 
>I for one say "yes".  Hock and Joseph prefer "unrelatable" to
>"unrelated", and I myself often write "not discoverably related".  But
>why shouldn't we just say "unrelated" and be aware of what we mean?
 
Because 1) it's less transparently precise than "not presently relatable" or
"not
discoverably related", thus 2) not everyone will be aware of what we mean,
students
especially. Students, even fairly sophisticated ones at higher levels,
misinterpret things
even when (senior people think) they're stated clearly. And senior people
mistinterpret
things from time to time when the writing isn't crystal clear.
 
I try to convince students that they should say what they mean and mean what
they
say, and that they should expect that the work they read is constructed with
the same
care. I think their academic elders owe it to them, as well as to peers, to
live up to
the bargain.
 
Sorry; obvious and off the point, but I couldn't resist--I think I've read
too many dissertations
in  the last few months, and had too many fits of "is that *really* what
so-and-so said?!"
 
Tom Cravens
University of Wisconsin-Madison
cravens at macc.wisc.edu