Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houca!trc
From: trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: t-this, t-that - no more?
Message-ID: <380@houca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Aug-83 12:43:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: houca.380
Posted: Mon Aug 29 12:43:56 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Aug-83 12:23:18 EDT
Lines: 21

Response to users of terms like "t-rational", "t-logic" etc:

Also, this notation makes the discussion in-accessible to new readers, by 
making the discussion sound as if it were somehow technical or profound.  
I object to such methods in philosophy or any other area.  Philosophy, in 
particular, is too important to be left to experts.  Lets try to limit our 
use of jargon, as much as possible, rather than deliberately expand it.

A proper way is to simply state "If I accept your definitions,...." or
something similar, (once) at the top of your note.  This makes it clear
that you are attempting to prove someone's views wrong by showing some
contradiction that arises from accepting their definition.

(I also think that using such terminology implies "I am willing to humor you 
and allow you to use this special terminology - since your definition really 
is not the correct meaning of that word".  If you don't like a person's
definition, just say so, and why, and be prepared to defend your position.
Definitions *are* important!)

	Tom Craver
	houca!trc