* David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [05-11-2003 00:36]: > Just for fun, I decided to run your search on Google. Here are some of > the more interesting results: > > wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?learning+curve > There, it's noted that Psychology didn't invent the term, but rather stole > it from aironautical engineering, and then turned its meaning upside down. Psychology didn't turn the meaning upside down; the aeronatical "learning curve" was given (if they were indeed first) different quantities by the psychologists. Therefore, both learning curves are not comparable. > Neither of those uses agrees with the popular "meaning," but I'd hesitate > to call the Psychology version "original," certainly after seeing that. Well, original or not, the "psychological" version (progress vs. time or attepts) is what Allister referred to. And my point merely was that he misused it. Nothing more. > http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/69/65.htm > Here, we have another one claiming Psychology to be the original > definition. It should come as no surprise, then, that the author goes > on to bash computer people for misusing it. That's bashing? Ha. Then in your opinion, I must have been bashing Allister.. Right. > http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb98/feder.html > Well, now there's an interesting phenomenum: how about the APA itself > misusing the term it stole from the airplane engineers? > > http://www.uwic.ac.uk/ltsu/documents/5th%20July%20Conference%20Handouts%20Dominic%20Upton.doc > Well, here we have another example of people well-versed in developmental > psychology abusing what they claim to be their own term. It may be stupid for people working in the field the term came from to misuse it, but that's no reason to haul down the definition. The whole point of a definition is that it's given / true. > That's three interesting results on the first page alone (10 total > results). If you're going to call the common use wrong, we might as well > call the Psychology use wrong, as well; as it's measuring the inverse of > what it should be. What _you_ think it should be. Be my guest, invent a Davean learning curve with different quantities, but don't say that a defintion of a term is wrong because (most) people misuse it. [...] > My take on the whole subject is that one shouldn't complain that others Correcting someone with a hint != complaining. I *could* complain about it, however.. > are using something in a wrong way unless he's willing to do enough > research to get to the bottom of the whole thing. I try to stick to facts and defnition as much as possible. Your examples of people misusing the term don't frighten me: in Holland, saying "Alice is better as Bob" when meaning "Alice is better than Bob" is common practice. We're at the point of making it an official rule. But for me, that's no reason to accept it (of course, until it becomes official). Fact that the majority doesn't "behave" like they ought to (according to the definition one should use "than" with a comparative) doesn't mean the definition is wrong. > Simply pointing to an earlier use which differs from the common one > is not enough, as we now clearly see. Pointing to many incorrect uses (abuses), followed by stating that the term is incorrect is worse. -- René Clerc - (rene@xxxxxxxx) - PGP: 0x9ACE0AC7
Attachment:
pgp79VCNoecFp.pgp
Description: PGP signature