LHC announcement tomorrow

[MeDeFe]

the discovery of this particle has literally nothing to do with whether a given god does or does not exist.

Good. Now think about this and you may come to understand natty's point of view.

his point of view is that if someone calls this particle by the name given to it by many, many others, then they are a moron.

Close, but not quite yet there, I'd say. You have the conclusion, but need to work a bit more on understanding the premise.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think this calls for a truth serum and a military tribunal.

truth syrup and military tributes galore!

[john9blue]

the discovery of this particle has literally nothing to do with whether a given god does or does not exist.

Good. Now think about this and you may come to understand natty's point of view.

his point of view is that if someone calls this particle by the name given to it by many, many others, then they are a moron.

Close, but not quite yet there, I'd say. You have the conclusion, but need to work a bit more on understanding the premise.

his point of view is NOT that "god particle" is an inaccurate name. he never even mentioned that. he went straight for the ad-hominem bullshit as always.

[Phatscotty]

There is actually a higher conversation to be had in the realm of Science dealing a blow to Religion. Science and newspapers called it the God particle with the full intention of "science solving God"/explaining where we come from or why.

Gotta think like a scientist

Now you just have to show the scientists that supported it being called "the god particle".

Every single one I've heard objects to the name.

Might you be talking bullshit yet again scotty?

There are no newspapers, no media, which would have anything to gain from this....
And of course there is no friction between "God n science".... why ever would you think that?

[InkL0sed]

the discovery of this particle has literally nothing to do with whether a given god does or does not exist.

Good. Now think about this and you may come to understand natty's point of view.

his point of view is that if someone calls this particle by the name given to it by many, many others, then they are a moron.

what if they decided to call it the "stamp-collecting particle"? would he adhere to his doctrine and rage against that name too?

i mean, i'd be fine if they called it "the satan particle", "the celery particle", or "the country music particle", and i dislike all of those things.

his "point of view" is idiotic and overly prescriptivist.

It's not prescriptivist really. Or it is, but it doesn't matter. For one thing, it's not "a name given to it by many, many others". It's a name given to it by one other, which many more people have picked up on because the media thinks it's a catchy name. I don't think it's actually that many people – I think it's mostly a term used in the media – but I can't be sure about that.

The other thing important thing about that name is it's not an alternate name for the particle. It's a nickname. The name is the Higgs boson. There's a big difference. And that's a descriptive claim, I'd like you to notice.

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

[Phatscotty]

the discovery of this particle has literally nothing to do with whether a given god does or does not exist.

Good. Now think about this and you may come to understand natty's point of view.

his point of view is that if someone calls this particle by the name given to it by many, many others, then they are a moron.

what if they decided to call it the "stamp-collecting particle"? would he adhere to his doctrine and rage against that name too?

i mean, i'd be fine if they called it "the satan particle", "the celery particle", or "the country music particle", and i dislike all of those things.

his "point of view" is idiotic and overly prescriptivist.

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

This

[InkL0sed]

Just so we're clear:

1. We know that we have found a new particle, and we are very certain that it's the Higgs boson.
2. "The God Particle" refers to the same thing as the Higgs boson, but that doesn't mean you should call it the God Particle instead of the Higgs boson.
3. Science is magic.

[Phatscotty]

Just so we're clear:

1. We know that we have found a new particle, and we are very certain that it's the Higgs boson.
2. "The God Particle" refers to the same thing as the Higgs boson, but that doesn't mean you should call it the God Particle instead of the Higgs boson.
3. Science is magic.

We can now read the face of God.

God it...

[Army of GOD]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

And just because someone calls it the "god particle" doesn't mean fucking anything. All of you little children should get over it.

It's funny...because the actual physics is over our heads, we argue over the intelligence of the people who call a particle by its nickname.

[Army of GOD]

oh god...this is the first line of the first article that comes up in Google when you type in "higgs boson"

It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the Higgs Boson, the discovery of which was announced at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire). Without this particle you wouldn’t exist. For that matter, the universe wouldn’t exist.

fucking really? and this is true for...how many particles?

[BigBallinStalin]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

I heard of it as the Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) through the grapevine. Upon hearing "God particle," I guffawed and then resumed with my life.

[natty dread]

his "point of view" is idiotic and overly prescriptivist.

My "point of view" is totally descriptivist.

I'm describing the idiots who call it the "god particle" morons.

Pretty much can't get any more descriptivist than that. Also, you're stupid.

[natty dread]

[InkL0sed]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

And just because someone calls it the "god particle" doesn't mean fucking anything. All of you little children should get over it.

It's funny...because the actual physics is over our heads, we argue over the intelligence of the people who call a particle by its nickname.

How does that make you "with john"? If you don't know the significance of a particle, why would you go around calling it the God particle? You even pointed out some of the ridiculousness of the hype in your next post.

I'm actually legitimately confused by what your point is here.

[Symmetry]

Wait till they get on to quarks. Strange as they are sometimes, the names have charm.

[MeDeFe]

Wait till they get on to quarks. Strange as they are sometimes, the names have charm.

Top, bottom and strawberry, right? There's no way the religious right is going to stand for it, it's way too kinky.

[Haggis_McMutton]

[Army of GOD]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

And just because someone calls it the "god particle" doesn't mean fucking anything. All of you little children should get over it.

It's funny...because the actual physics is over our heads, we argue over the intelligence of the people who call a particle by its nickname.

How does that make you "with john"? If you don't know the significance of a particle, why would you go around calling it the God particle? You even pointed out some of the ridiculousness of the hype in your next post.

I'm actually legitimately confused by what your point is here.

Why does it matter what anyone calls it? It's a nickname. Just because someone calls Lebron James the "king" doesn't mean they think he's an actual monarch.

It's just a nickname and if natty(_)dread seriously gets distraught over what people call it, then I fully support their use of the nickname.

[Lootifer]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

I heard of it as the Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) through the grapevine. Upon hearing "God particle," I guffawed and then resumed with my life.

I played WoW with a particle physicist, dude was always keeping us updated, kinda cool, but so narrow and specialised

[MeDeFe]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

And just because someone calls it the "god particle" doesn't mean fucking anything. All of you little children should get over it.

It's funny...because the actual physics is over our heads, we argue over the intelligence of the people who call a particle by its nickname.

How does that make you "with john"? If you don't know the significance of a particle, why would you go around calling it the God particle? You even pointed out some of the ridiculousness of the hype in your next post.

I'm actually legitimately confused by what your point is here.

Why does it matter what anyone calls it? It's a nickname. Just because someone calls Lebron James the "king" doesn't mean they think he's an actual monarch.

Usurper!!

There is only one King! And he was abducted by aliens.

[InkL0sed]

The point is using that nickname implies you buy in to the hype that it has anything to do with God, or that it's all-powerful like God. Sure, it does refer to the same thing. But words do not mean the same thing just because they refer to the same thing.

wat

I'm with john on this one. It's a nickname. None of us are remotely aware (ok, maybe one or two of us, assuming one or two of us are a scientist studying particle physics) of the true importance of this discovery. I mean, show of hands, how many people in this thread only know what the Higgs boson because of some Youtube video or news article?

And just because someone calls it the "god particle" doesn't mean fucking anything. All of you little children should get over it.

It's funny...because the actual physics is over our heads, we argue over the intelligence of the people who call a particle by its nickname.

How does that make you "with john"? If you don't know the significance of a particle, why would you go around calling it the God particle? You even pointed out some of the ridiculousness of the hype in your next post.

I'm actually legitimately confused by what your point is here.

Why does it matter what anyone calls it? It's a nickname. Just because someone calls Lebron James the "king" doesn't mean they think he's an actual monarch.

It's just a nickname and if natty(_)dread seriously gets distraught over what people call it, then I fully support their use of the nickname.

It matters because language is for communication. Saying "God Particle" communicates something different than "Higgs boson". Especially since "God Particle" is actually a nickname that's longer than the actual name. Sometimes nicknames are just a shorter version of the real name, and they only exist for efficiency of communication. That's certainly not the case here. If you say "God Particle" instead of "Higgs boson", you're intentionally communicating something different. In most cases, it's because you're in the media and you're adding that implication because you want to sensationalize the story. If you're not, it's probably because you're uninformed.

If you want to communicate to people that you think the Higgs boson is godly, or that you're simply uninformed enough to believe something like that, then fine, use it. I'm not saying you can't do that. But understand how you'll be perceived if you do.

And your example of Lebron James and "king" is fallacious, because people use the word "king" in that context not to mean a monarch, but to mean that he's the best or greatest. People do usually say that to mean he's the best or greatest player, or whatever it is the person is (like Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop" for instance). Or if that's not what they mean, it's certainly what people understand.

[Army of GOD]

It matters because language is for communication. Saying "God Particle" communicates something different than "Higgs boson". Especially since "God Particle" is actually a nickname that's longer than the actual name. Sometimes nicknames are just a shorter version of the real name, and they only exist for efficiency of communication. That's certainly not the case here. If you say "God Particle" instead of "Higgs boson", you're intentionally communicating something different. In most cases, it's because you're in the media and you're adding that implication because you want to sensationalize the story. If you're not, it's probably because you're uninformed.

If you want to communicate to people that you think the Higgs boson is godly, or that you're simply uninformed enough to believe something like that, then fine, use it. I'm not saying you can't do that. But understand how you'll be perceived if you do.

And your example of Lebron James and "king" is fallacious, because people use the word "king" in that context not to mean a monarch, but to mean that he's the best or greatest. People do usually say that to mean he's the best or greatest player, or whatever it is the person is (like Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop" for instance). Or if that's not what they mean, it's certainly what people understand.

I'm going to have to disagree with the underlined.

And nicknames aren't just for efficiency. I have several nicknames and many of them are longer than my actual name/the shortened version of my name (Richard/Rich). One of my nicknames is "Big Dick" (you know, because I have a large penis [but really because it's moronically amusing {"big"} and because another name for Rich is Dick]).

I'm sure there are people who think the Higgs boson is actually godly or whatever, but there are also people who think Jesus lived at the same time as dinosaurs, so that means very little. Calling the other group of people "uninformed" is a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's just more fun to say?

And if you want to be this nitpicky about "communication" then good luck with the entirety of colloquial language. People use the word "god" to refer to people who are really good/the best at something too (stuff like "Magic Johnson is a basketball god", etc.).

[Army of GOD]

oh and I bet my argument is coming off more unintelligible but that's just because I'm losing interest in it.

I just find natty(_)dread's hypocritical bigotry funny.

[InkL0sed]

It matters because language is for communication. Saying "God Particle" communicates something different than "Higgs boson". Especially since "God Particle" is actually a nickname that's longer than the actual name. Sometimes nicknames are just a shorter version of the real name, and they only exist for efficiency of communication. That's certainly not the case here. If you say "God Particle" instead of "Higgs boson", you're intentionally communicating something different. In most cases, it's because you're in the media and you're adding that implication because you want to sensationalize the story. If you're not, it's probably because you're uninformed.

If you want to communicate to people that you think the Higgs boson is godly, or that you're simply uninformed enough to believe something like that, then fine, use it. I'm not saying you can't do that. But understand how you'll be perceived if you do.

And your example of Lebron James and "king" is fallacious, because people use the word "king" in that context not to mean a monarch, but to mean that he's the best or greatest. People do usually say that to mean he's the best or greatest player, or whatever it is the person is (like Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop" for instance). Or if that's not what they mean, it's certainly what people understand.

I'm going to have to disagree with the underlined.

And nicknames aren't just for efficiency. I have several nicknames and many of them are longer than my actual name/the shortened version of my name (Richard/Rich). One of my nicknames is "Big Dick" (you know, because I have a large penis [but really because it's moronically amusing {"big"} and because another name for Rich is Dick]).

I'm sure there are people who think the Higgs boson is actually godly or whatever, but there are also people who think Jesus lived at the same time as dinosaurs, so that means very little. Calling the other group of people "uninformed" is a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's just more fun to say?

And if you want to be this nitpicky about "communication" then good luck with the entirety of colloquial language. People use the word "god" to refer to people who are really good/the best at something too (stuff like "Magic Johnson is a basketball god", etc.).

AoG, you are arguing with me about semantics when you clearly have no knowledge or even interest in the subject (unless it offends your so-called "apathism"). Stop it. It's intellectually dishonest. You are wrong in the above post about a lot of things, some of them because you misunderstood what I was saying.

First of all, the underlined is not an opinion. Words refer to things (which may or may not be real), and that forms part of their meaning (and usually that's all that's mentioned in their "definition"), but not all of it. They have many and varied connotations and associations and implications. Words don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in context, not just of a given sentence, but of language itself.

Nicknames: yes, that was my point. I was saying that sometimes nicknames are for efficiency, but other times they're not. The God Particle is not an example of a nickname made for efficiency. If it's not for efficiency, it must be for something else. Again, that was the point.

Communication is a two-way street, and it's not something any individual gets to make a decision about. If I say "door", but I understand the word to mean "window", it's my fault that you think I meant a thing that swings open on hinges in a wall to allow people to pass through. That applies to all the subtleties of a word or phrase as well. My point is that when you say "God Particle" instead of "Higgs boson", you risk being perceived as uninformed by the informed, whether or not you actually are. Your motivations for saying the phrase don't matter, because you can't change the implications, connotations, and associations of any word or phrase. Yes, it's somewhat arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than the fact that the combination of sounds that makes the word "god" refers to a higher, supernatural power.

As to your last point: you really don't understand how words can have multiple meanings, do you? Also, there's a field of science called Linguistics, and there's a branch of that field called Semantics, where people actually study this stuff. Like, with empirical data and stuff! Maybe it's not as hopeless an enterprise as you think! Le gasp!

In conclusion, don't try to argue with me about these things. I'm not going to try to argue with a chemist about chemical reactions because I know very little about it, so don't argue with me about linguistics. I know a lot about linguistics.

[Woodruff]

Communication is a two-way street, and it's not something any individual gets to make a decision about. If I say "door", but I understand the word to mean "window", it's my fault that you think I meant a thing that swings open on hinges in a wall to allow people to pass through. That applies to all the subtleties of a word or phrase as well. My point is that when you say "God Particle" instead of "Higgs boson", you risk being perceived as uninformed by the informed, whether or not you actually are. Your motivations for saying the phrase don't matter, because you can't change the implications, connotations, and associations of any word or phrase. Yes, it's somewhat arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than the fact that the combination of sounds that makes the word "god" refers to a higher, supernatural power.

Thank you!

As to your last point: you really don't understand how words can have multiple meanings, do you? Also, there's a field of science called Linguistics, and there's a branch of that field called Semantics, where people actually study this stuff. Like, with empirical data and stuff! Maybe it's not as hopeless an enterprise as you think! Le gasp!

Indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo?1