WTF is "cold iron", and why's it so special?

[Mannahnin]

When he was discussing this with me in his last incarnation a few pages ago, at some point I defined it for him. It was something to the effect of, "Occurring in nature without outside help." So termite mounds and beaver damns do not occur in nature as you won't find one that wasn't built by termites or beavers. Bees are natural. Beehives are not. Humans are natural. Clothing is not. And so on.

This definition is nonsensical. "outside" of what? How is a beaver or a human building a thing less natural than wind and water building it without intent? Are bird's nests unnatural? Really? And ant tunnels?

Beaver dams and the Hoover Dam are both natural. The ideology you're espousing is predicated on a harmful dualistic conception of the world, one step removed from the Sacred/Profane division that calls the physical world sinful and evil and conceives that only the immaterial can be good. And equally well supported. :/

 

[Mannahnin]

Dictionaries don't define terms on principle. They document how words are used. A frequent usage of natural is indeed that which exists without human intervention. It's seems strange to suggest that we must come up with another definition that doesn't align with actual usage.

Does whether a thing is frequently described in a particular way make that definition accurate? If, during the height of the Satanic Panic, the most common understanding of D&D was "an imaginative game which is harmful to people's mental health and likely their souls" would that make that the truth?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Obviously all things, material or immaterial, real or imaginary, are natural for all things have some sort of natures. Clearly a very useful word.

But if only we also had some sort of term for when something exists without the interventions of human technology...

 

[Mannahnin]

Obviously all things, material or immaterial, real or imaginary, are natural for all things have some sort of natures. Clearly a very useful word.

But if only we also had some sort of term for when something exists without the interventions of human technology...

There are certainly a number of other more useful definitions. Wiktionary has that one as the fourth of fifteen.

natural - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What foul necromancy is this I see! The arguments of gatorized seem a lot like those gator001 was arguing last year on the previous page of this very thread.

Is this thread to be cursed with some sort of "gator" based character emerging every year to pitch this "everything is natural" line of argument for all time? Is @Maxperson to forever be our gator wrestling champion?

Who knew Tim Tebow spent his spare time on EnWorld?

 

[Irlo]

Does whether a thing is frequently described in a particular way make that definition accurate? If, during the height of the Satanic Panic, the most common understanding of D&D was "an imaginative game which is harmful to people's mental health and likely their souls" would that make that the truth?

Definitions don't exist in some objective state outside of usage. It's not about truth. It's about what we convey and what we intend to convey with words.

 

[Umbran]

Dictionaries don't define terms on principle. They document how words are used.

Yep. That is exactly why the dictionary is unhelpful in this context.

 

[Umbran]

Definitions don't exist in some objective state outside of usage.

Definitions of (and I recognize the irony here) natural language words are as you say.

However, formal logic has a different view of definitions that really should carry some weight here. Alas, most folks haven't seen formal logic since junior high school or thereabouts.

 

[Maxperson]

This definition is nonsensical. "outside" of what? How is a beaver or a human building a thing less natural than wind and water building it without intent? Are bird's nests unnatural? Really? And ant tunnels?

I thought it was clear from context. Outside of nature itself. And both of those questions are a yes. Ant tunnels do not occur by themselves. They are constructed. Same with bird nests.

Beaver dams and the Hoover Dam are both natural.

No they aren't. Or if they are, both the word and concept of unnatural don't exist. Nuclear bombs are natural!

The ideology you're espousing is predicated on a harmful dualistic conception of the world, one step removed from the Sacred/Profane division that calls the physical world sinful and evil and conceives that only the immaterial can be good. And equally well supported. :/

Holy hell you just went way out into left field, decided that left field wasn't far enough and tripled it, then decided to go even further into something that just plain wasn't said or implied. Don't assign crap like that to me again.

 

[Umbran]

No they aren't. Or if they are, both the word and concept of unnatural don't exist. Nuclear bombs are natural!

The reaction that happens in nuclear bombs is perfectly natural. Indeed, there have been identified "natural nuclear reactors" in which sufficient amounts of fissionable materials existed in the presence of water sources as coolant and moderator to support sustained nuclear fission chain reactions over time - in like a several hour cycle for hundreds of thousands of years. And, of course, fusion reactions in the sun make your life possible.

A problem you face here is that the idea that what mankind does is not natural is grounded in pre-Darwin philosophy, when folks thought of human beings as something strictly separate from the rest of the natural world. The theory of evolution and further research has placed humankind firmly within the natural order, putting a big hole in that idea.

Now, given that the whole idea of "cold iron" being relevant is also pre-Darwin, you now should now see your way out of the conflict.

This whole argument about whether human action is natural is irrelevant. You need to discuss the historical attitude, not present understanding.