Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism
Were I a fake skeptic, wishing to obfuscate social understanding of a new set of observations or a new science, I would seek to deny this disfavored subject the lexicon necessary in developing descriptives and measures under the scientific method (Wittgenstein Error – Descriptive). I would disposition its terminology as constituting ‘made up words;’ citing it as too novel, unnecessary or too peculiar to the understanding of the first person I ever heard utter its terms. Conversely, any half witted term my allies made up would be granted unqualified and immediate gravitas, based on who said it, and who its intended victims were.
All this constitutes the gaming of lexicology in order to control access to science. To Wittgenstein, all perfidious activity, every bit the same as what he defined to be pseudoscience.
When faced with a new term, the Ethical Skeptic must adhere to a disciplined framework of how to regard the new term, and ensure that their methods of thinking do not unnecessarily sway their judgement into a domain of prejudice and ignorance. A neologism is not simply a new word. Nor does its designation, in a professional context, imply that a term designated as such is invalid or made up. The Ethical Skeptic must be diligent in their effort to not replicate these mistakes and abuses of Social Skepticism; those who employ the term ‘neologism’ (sic) in a pejorative, abusive and equivocal fashion. This constituting lexicon gaming; an attempt to filter out ideas and concepts which they disfavor or by which they are threatened.
The actual term employed, in neutral context, to frame a description of a new word is neolexia, not neologism.
To deny a subject its own descriptive and measure language, is to artificially relegate it into the realm of incoherence, independent of its verity or lack thereof. Ethical Skepticism demands that a contention be found right or wrong through diligent observation and measure, and not through ignorance born of gaming its denial of a critical language.
Neologisms, as opposed to neolexia, are very often valid and frequently employed terms and concepts, which simply have not been accepted completely into the entire public vernacular. Consider below, the difference in philosophy’s framing of each definition, as compared to the equivocal and abusive employment of the term (#3 below) – the abusive habit of today’s Social Skeptic.
Neolexia (from the Greek néo-, “new”, and lexikó, “dictionary”) ¹ ²
- a new word
- the lexicon or archive of neologism attributable to a specific person, discipline, publication, period, or event.
Neologism (legitimate, from the Greek néo-, “new”, and lógos, “speech”)¹ ² ³
- a newly coined term, word or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language¹
- a new corpora³
- a term compounded from accepted terms
- a new employment context or meaning for an existing word (excluding malapropism)³
- a new word or phrase describing a new concept
- an isolate term describing a neglected or newly critical concept
‘Neologism’ (psychology/pseudo-professional/pejorative-equivocal) ² ³
- A made up word, meaningful to only its inventor
- A feared word in the eyes of person wishing to suppress the idea it represents
The Three Tests to Qualify a Neolexia as a Neologism (and not a ‘Neologism’)
Designating a term one does not like as a ‘neologism’ (the quotes denoting employment in the pseudo-professional pejorative) is a common technique of enforcing a prejudicial Wittgenstein Descriptive Error. In general, a term is not simply a neolexia or a ‘neologism’ simply because someone has employed it to describe a concept or subject which threatens the recipient. A neologism is a word, phrase or employment which is being considered for legitimate use in describing a formerly tough-to-articulate or identify concept. In the lexicon of Social Skeptics, the term is employed, ironically as a ‘neologism’ itself (ie. wrong employment), per the following
‘Neologism’ (in Social Skepticism)
/pseudo skepticism : obfuscation methods & tools/ : a term which serves to identify, describe, frame or measure inside a subject which is threatening to the recipient – so therefore is dispositioned by the recipient as new, unnecessary or made up. A word which is falsely cited as ‘made up’ because it has been crafted, employed or uttered by a person who is disliked, or regarding a subject which the pseudo skeptic wishes to squelch.
Neologism Fallacy – falsely condemning a term by citing it to be a ‘neologism’ in the pejorative, when in fact the word is in common legitimate use, or is accepted as a neologism, or passes the three tests to qualify as a functional neologism.
Neologism Error – falsely deeming a word as a neologism when it is in fact a neolexia. Granting a word which does not qualify as a neologism, status as a neologism simply because of who originated the word, and who indeed are its intended victims.
Neologasm – excessive use of the pejorative designation of words as constituting ‘neologism,’ in order to block ideas or deny science one disfavors.
This is the instance where a person wishes to disparage a subject or person by citing it as made up, and therefore invalid. It is no different than declaring a whole subject to be a pseudoscience, in absence of any investigation or research. The disposition may indeed be correct, but the means by which the user arrives at such a disposition is pseudoscience (Wittgenstein Error).
In fact, the professional designation of a term or concept as a neologism is not a pejorative or obfuscating exercise. In general there are three qualifications which allow for a neolexia, a new word (neutrally employed), to qualify as a neologism (being considered for or newly used, to articulate a concept). These are the three logical characteristic litmus tests of such a new word – involving, its
- Isolate Employment
- Possession of a Logical Critical Path
Or as expressed in the inverse, the three qualifications which relegate a word into the bucket of pejorative ‘neologism’ (ironically we need a new word for this concept to avoid its equivocal use) are its being novel, superfluous and not necessary in articulating a specific logical critical path (see below).
A plangonophile is a doll enthusiast
1. The term has been in use for longer than 25 years (French) – NOVELTY
2. it serves as a stand alone concept, in that it does not overlap with existing terms and has a specific descriptive counterpart in discourse – ISOLATE
3. It is a necessary component in a logical critical path (describing concepts differentiating doll enthusiasm from collecting or manufacturing) – CRITICAL PATH
Therefore, plangonophile is a neologism (in the non-pejorative)†
In contrast, let’s consider the neolexia ‘truthiness’
Truthiness is a proposed neologism, outlining a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right.”‡ This term fails the qualification to become a neologism – and is relegated to a useless neolexia because
1. The term has been in use by only one person (Stephen Colbert) for less than a year – NOVELTY‡
2. it overlaps with concepts of gut feel or intuitive grasp, common sense or confidence, and lacks a specific descriptive counterpart in discourse, other than employment in humorously attacking disparate ideas one does not like – NON-ISOLATE
3. It is NOT a necessary component in a logical critical path (it does not improve philosophy, only serves to improve rhetoric and polemic, obdurate or bandwagon discourse) – NON-CRITICAL PATH
Therefore, truthiness is a useless neolexia – a neologism (in the pejorative). Its acceptance is only driven forward by social pressure, and not the discipline of lexicology.
The Ethical Skeptic will take note that the term truthiness, nonetheless, was granted immediate entré into the ranks of neologism, based simply upon who uttered it, and who its intended victims were. This is not only pseudoscience, but social fraud. The Wittgenstein error of playing with language in order to promote or obscure political and scientific discourse to one’s liking.
Were I a fake skeptic, wishing to obfuscate social understanding that doll collecting was on the increase, I would seek to deny its terminology any role in the lexicon of that which is descriptive and measurable (Wittgenstein Error – Descriptive). I would disposition the term plangonophile as a ‘neologism’ and be incensed at the pseudoscience each time I heard it. I wold cite it as too new, or too peculiar to the understanding of the first person I ever heard mention the term. This is simply today’s social skepticism method of blocking science through the descriptives necessary in making observations and measurements. To Wittgenstein, every bit the same set of activity as what he defined to be pseudoscience.
A second technique I could employ, would be to create several dozen categories of doll collection subsets, from existing terminology (Barbie collecting, Troll Doll collecting, GI Joe collecting, American Girl Doll collecting) by means of which I could hide aggregate data and intelligence regarding the overall trends inside plangonophilia. This is the process called deconstructionism. It is a common means of obfuscating data, and blocking necessity under Ockham’s Razor.
Each of these techniques stands exemplary of the Wittgenstein Error of blocking the ability of science to develop the descriptive language, relationships and measures necessary in the advancement of science and understanding. A keen minded Ethical Skeptic is able to spot such dark intellectual work as it happens, and stand in the gap for new and developing science. You are not there to provide peer review, that will come at a later date. In the early phases of the scientific method, the Ethical Skeptic is an ally. Fully desirous of seeing what is valid and invalid concerning the new subject under contention or sponsorship.
Falsely declaring a term or measure I do not like, as a ‘neologism,’ while at the same time granting the made up expressions of my allies immediate gravitas, is habitual pseudoscience.
² Wikipedia: Neologism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
³ Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora, Lynne Bowker, Jennifer Pearson; Taylor & Francis, Sep 26, 2002.
† The International Dictionary of Neologisms, http://neologisms.us/
‡ Wikipedia: Truthiness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
No comments yet.