6.0091 More Rs: On 'Discovery' (2/28)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Thu, 18 Jun 1992 18:31:00 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 6, No. 0091. Thursday, 18 Jun 1992.


(1) Date: 18 June 92, 10:14:57 SET (12 lines)
From: Marc Eisinger +33 (1) 49 05 72 27 <EISINGER@FRIBM11>
Subject: Discovery

(2) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 10:13 pm EDT (16 lines)
From: "Robert C. Schweik Dr" <SCHWEIK@FREDONIA.BITNET>
Subject: "DISCOVERY"

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 June 92, 10:14:57 SET
From: Marc Eisinger +33 (1) 49 05 72 27 <EISINGER@FRIBM11>
Subject: Discovery

> It seems singularly narrow to regard something as uninteresting
> if it has no perceptible impact on oneself.

(I didn't write "on oneself")

My point is simply : there is no difference between something that has
no impact and something that doesn't exist.
Marc
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 10:13 pm EDT (Thu, 18 Jun 92 02:13:07 UT)
From: "Robert C. Schweik Dr" <SCHWEIK@FREDONIA.BITNET>
Subject: "DISCOVERY"

I appreciate Irena Sumi's thoughtful comment on my inquiry
about the use of the word "DISCOVERY." But I would again
wish to stress my basic question. Is there some solid
evidence--in data bases, bibliographies, or other compilations--
supporting the view that efforts to change the meaning of
a word--e.g., DISCOVERY--or the name of a social class--e.g.,
class--e.g., NEGRO, BLACK, AFRO-AMERICAN--has had the effect
of demonstrably improving the condition of the class for
whom the change in meaning or name was intended to help?

Is there any evidence to the contrary? Could such manipulations
of words create an artificial sense of improvement when, in fact,
no substantial improvement took place?

Robert Schweik
SCHWEIK@FREDONIA