Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <4118@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 16:01:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4118
Posted: Fri Jul 20 16:01:26 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 16:01:26 EDT
References: brl-vgr.507 <569@ihuxj.UUCP>, <93@mouton.UUCP>, <1135@rti-sel.UUCP>, <3328@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29

Clearly, the physicists need a word to use when they want to
describe ``energy'' (what physicists mean by energy). However,
the philosophers and the mystics have a need for a word as well.

If the physicists preempt the word that has been around for a long time
and hasn't been used only to describe what the physicists mean then they
create several problems for themselves and for other people.

The people who have been using ``energy'' without meaning what the
physists mean immediately get told that they are entirely wrong because
what they are talking about isn't ``energy'' at all. This is rather
rough on the people who didn't know that the physicists were about
to redefine the term, but they can always go back and rewrite, I suppose.
It is terribky hard on the people who are dead, though. If you ever
try to read old manuscripts you will find that ``energy'' is used to
mean a whole variety of things. It makes reading the old manuscripts
more difficult because you have to keep thinking that the words that
he is using does not have the same context as you carry around with you.

The other effect is perhaps worse. Some fraud gets up and talks about
``the mysterious energy whatzit'' and lo and behold people assume that
because he is using the wonderful scientific term ``energy'' he must
be 100% genuine and thoroughly scientific.

Either way you lose. I can't help but think that it would be better
if somebody had just coined a new word.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura