[PREV - DARKWOOD]    [TOP]

NEOLOOGIES

The neologism manuever can
be effective at simplifying
an argument.

Consider

  Thomas Sowell's                       UNCONSTRAINED
  "constrained/unconstrained"

  Virgina Postrel's
  "dynamicist/staticist"

If they'd stuck to more conventional labels
like "conservative/liberal/libertarian" then
they'd be off in a morass of quibbling about
exceptions, and explaining away inconvenient
details.  Everything would have to be
heavily qualified: "People of category X
*have a tendency* to act like Y, though it
does appear that some sub-categories of X
show a different pattern..."

     But there are risks to neologism:
     awkward terminology can be a barrier
     to understanding; it can make you
     sound like an irrelevant eccentric.

     Another risk: descent into tautology.
     What I am saying is relevant only to
     this new category I've invented.  If
     you find a problem, I'll claim
     you're just talking about a
     different category.  My category is
     by definition the set of things for
     which whatever I say is true.



        But by all means use
        your own terms.             You know all
                                    too well where
        Even if they end            the others
        up fuzzy and                have been.
        ill-defined, they
        can't be any worse
        than the others.



--------
[NEXT - IN_DEEP]