Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8254889" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>[USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] no. I am saying I believe your argument is specious because it is pretty obvious that fiction is a highly equivocal term. It is pretty common sensicsl that a term like fiction (which can mean both ‘imagined stuff’ and ‘story’ and is often first regarded as a reference to literature) could very easily be equivocated on by shifting from one of those meanings to get to another. And what is more: it’s a blurry term because it strongly suggests things like literature, novels, etc. so even if it is being used to describe ‘imagined stuff’, I would argue it’s other connotations are so strong, they carry into the conversation unnoticed. Again I don’t have your knowledge of linguistics to contend with your argument, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong and you are right (people use their expertise all the time to advance specious arguments). My point is, I don’t change my mind because one academic who is on the other side of a debate with me on a hand forum decides to make an argument using knowledge from their field (I will happily listen to neutral academics, but I think you can see why I would be wary when something seems so obvious to me)</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8254889, member: 85555"] [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] no. I am saying I believe your argument is specious because it is pretty obvious that fiction is a highly equivocal term. It is pretty common sensicsl that a term like fiction (which can mean both ‘imagined stuff’ and ‘story’ and is often first regarded as a reference to literature) could very easily be equivocated on by shifting from one of those meanings to get to another. And what is more: it’s a blurry term because it strongly suggests things like literature, novels, etc. so even if it is being used to describe ‘imagined stuff’, I would argue it’s other connotations are so strong, they carry into the conversation unnoticed. Again I don’t have your knowledge of linguistics to contend with your argument, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong and you are right (people use their expertise all the time to advance specious arguments). My point is, I don’t change my mind because one academic who is on the other side of a debate with me on a hand forum decides to make an argument using knowledge from their field (I will happily listen to neutral academics, but I think you can see why I would be wary when something seems so obvious to me) [/QUOTE]

Verification