I just find it annoying. It is a perversion of our language that is misleading, confusing, and causes people to make provably false statements.
It is just one of my many pet peeves. I have a rather large collection of them.
I think that you do't actually understand language.
in fact, you apparently did not understand the language I very clearly used.
A carrot grown with the aid of Synthetic Chemical compounds no longer qualifies for the catagory of Organic as it is being used and defined through standards set up by USE OF LANGUAGE, consumers, growers and now, the government.
To stick to this notion that 'well, the carrot underneath the synthesized chemical compounds is still Organic' Is not only a silly substantive notion of word definitions it is a mistaken usage of a term . . . as terms are defined through usage over-time.
To do so is to believe that the 'meaning' of a word is something that hovers inside the word, or object denoted, like some kind of absolute soul of the word . . . that isn't how language gets meaning: that isn't what definitions 'mean'. That is a bad habit of thought that, thankfully, thinkers (philosophers for instance) have gotten over.
The term Organic, when applied in a farming/food distribution/consumer environment is very clearly DEFINITE: defined by the use which is now, happily, circumscribed by STANDARDS.
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics is 'Organic' because it is still a growth process, and gee I am so clever and I took 'Organic-chemistry' and gee isn't everything 'Organic?' . .is simply missunderstanding . .
in other words: wrong
read the above and my other post closely and you might learn something
By the way: if everything was one thing, in other words, if everything fell under the domain of one word or concept, what would differentiate one thing from another?
If everything was paper-mache, then how would we define Cheetos or Ink or freedom?
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics...
I can go along with a lot of what you've said about how words have and acquire meaning. I'm also glad that the old usage of "organic" in product labeling was upheld. But I can't go along with the overwrought fear of applying genetics to agriculture that your use of all-caps WORSE implies.
All of the food we eat is the result of random genetic manipulation by Nature Herself. The only real advantage of natural "organic" foods is that we're somewhat more likely to be reasonably well adapted to the constituents of natural foods, in that our ancestors, who had nothing else to eat, managed to live at least long enough to reproduce and nurture their young while eating such foods.
Hoping to live to 100, in great health, because you eat only organic foods? Well, there's nothing in our evolutionary past that's going to insure that organic foods have any such wonderfully healthy characteristics. Such foods are only proven to be good enough to keep us going for maybe 20-40 years, typical lifespans over the course of human evolution.
We're probably only genetically well-adapted to the natural foods of a particular region, or of a few regions inhabited by our ancestors. Who knows, for example, what eating all-natural organic oranges, brocolli, and tofu together in the same meal might do to us? Has there ever been a study done to make sure that combo is safe? None of our ancestors' genetic profiles were ever tested against such exotic combinations of foods from far-flung regions. Maybe that combination of foods, done frequently, would reduct average lifespan a year or two or ten. Who knows? No one will probably ever study such a thing.
While there are indeed some good reasons to exercise caution in regard to our new forays into genetic engineering of our food supply (some dealing with the health of the environment, not just the healthfulness of the food), I think that the overwhelming objection to such technology is more often fueled by a simplistic "Nature -- GOOD! Artificial -- BAD!" attitude.
I'll take a chemical-laden Diet Coke over an all-natural cup of hemlock tea any day.
If we force-fed rats megadoses of parsely or papaya, the same way we test artificial food ingredients, would you really be shocked to find out that these Gifts of Gaia could also be said to "cause cancer" or other maladies?
There are many things about the foods we eat, about agribusiness, that we're doing wrong. But, given that humans now live more than twice as long as when humans had nothing but all-natural, wholesome, blessed-by-Mother-Nature organic food to eat, one has to at least consider that "artificial" doesn't always have to equal "bad", and that maybe we've used technology to do a few things right.
I think that you do't actually understand language.
in fact, you apparently did not understand the language I very clearly used.
-snip-
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics is 'Organic' because it is still a growth process, and gee I am so clever and I took 'Organic-chemistry' and gee isn't everything 'Organic?' . .is simply missunderstanding . .
in other words: wrong
read the above and my other post closely and you might learn something
LOL -- yes I understood exactly what you said -- even the big words
Let us go over what you said:
Quote:
Why is the use of the term 'Organic' 'intolerable'?
Not only is it an appropriate term, it is incorrect that foods grown with pesticides are 'Organic':
Simply put, Pesticides are 'SYNTHETIC', they come from chemical compounds that have been synthesized . . . they are no longer 'organic'
Right, pesticides are synthetic.
Quote:
if the distinction one wants to make is Synthetic vs untouched(by synthesized compounds)-unprocessed-growth . . .
You want to distinguish between food raised with the use of synthetic materials and food raised without the use of synthetic materials. I'm with you so far...
Quote:
which we will, out of brilliant choice of wordage, and lack of a decent replacement term,
Ah, here we have disagreement - it was an idiotic choice of wordage, and Synthetic Free or its like would have been a much better replacement term.
Quote:
and, due to the accretion of understanding which comes from common usage, use the term 'ORGANIC' to name the difference of said growth process from 'Synthetic' -which, again, means grown with the aid of 'synthesized chemical compounds or processes!!
More disagreement: Synthetic does not mean "grown with the aid of 'synthesized chemical compounds or processes" It means : Relating to, involving, or of the nature of synthesis.
Ok let's see if you can grasp this:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
You cannot invalidate those statements. Try to understand that one common meaning of a word does not invalidate another common meaning of the word.
The problem I have with using organic to mean "grown without the use of synthetic pesticides of fertilizers" is that it creates a paradox, and that is why I did not like the term long before it came into common usage.
Uh, by the way, about the genetics part you just mentioned -- do know how much of the food we eat has been synthetically engineered by humans? From Hybrid corn and grains to selective breeding -- we have artificially been playing around with genetics of our food for thousands of years.
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
No, it is not difficult to 'invalidate' these statements: considering the context of usage the term "Organic" means sprayed with pesticide.
You may not like it but that is the way it is. . . . consequently, your statement is not true.
And there is a difference between husbanding and selective breeding, and cross-breeding plants etc . . .and reaching into the genetic code of one species, assuming that we have the right genes for 'glow in the dark' and only for that, and then putting that into a rabbit.
and Shetline, I object to your condescending tone with regards to the reasons that I choose to eat 'Oraganic' foods when possible . . . I don't expect to live any longer . . .but I do feel better . . . but mostly, I buy these foods becaue I don't my daughter, who drinks a buttload of milk getting filled up with nerve toxins and or growth hormones and etc . .
I am also not too worried about genetics as far as ingesting them is concerned, allthough the effect on the environment can be very very drastic: just imagine some of these genetic salmo escaping from the hatchery-farm and having some strange ass uncounted upon genetic anomoly from some other species and it gets loose in the wild!! and there is definitely drift with genetic corn pollen, and not to mention the monoculture and ready-round-up catastrophe that is ongoing!!! . . . but eating them . .. I'm not too worried . . though I do, if I can avoid them.
They were my statements in my context and both totally true. To say otherwise is to call me a lier.
The problem here, is that your context isn't the generally accepted context, the generally accepted context is what pfflam mentioned, that's why your statements are "false", to anyone other than you(and others that share the same pet peeve)
Quote:
You really seem to be having difficulty understanding that words can have more then one meaning...
heh, that's exactly what you're having a problem with too!
well, that is to say, you don't want to accept that organic has multiple meanings, one of them not relating to your usage or definition, but rather to 'synthfree' foods.
oh well, I think you're both being stubborn and nit picky.
heh, that's exactly what you're having a problem with too!
well, that is to say, you don't want to accept that organic has multiple meanings, one of them not relating to your usage or definition, but rather to 'synthfree' foods.
oh well, I think you're both being stubborn and nit picky.
Stubborn and nit picky? Yep.
But I do accept that one of the meanings of the word Organic has become "food that has been grown without the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers" -- I don't particularly like it, but I accept it and use the term often (I am a strong supporter of local organic farmers).
What exasperates me is when people use it as a negative (i.e., saying "not organic" when referring to things made up organic matter). If they say "it is not organically grown," ok, that is understandable, but if they flatly state that a hunk of organic matter is not organic, and adamantly refuse to accept the other meaning of the word... well, that can create a paradox that could end the world as we know it!!!
Truthfully, the only people that I've ever run into in the real world that had a problem with accepting both meanings of the word are "health-food as a religion" types (I worked in the health-food business for several years, and only ran into a few of them).
But I do accept that one of the meanings of the word Organic has become "food that has been grown without the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers" -- I don't particularly like it, but I accept it and use the term often (I am a strong supporter of local organic farmers).
I hate to be a stickler, but I love to be a stickler-who's right . . .the above contradicts:Quote:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
When considered that the implicit context is one where the term 'Organic' is used in the manner I have discussed it . . . and guess what, In quotiddian life that is the predominant and commonly understood context.
and since 'Truth', when considering such things as 'context' is not really appropriate and 'universal' anymore, we could, following the great Philosopher J.L. Austin, say: 'the use of the term 'Organic' is fellicitous within the context of daily life and usage'
in order for those 'truism' to be true (or fellicitous) the context would have to be the restrictive discourse of a chem-lab . . . or perhaps your house.
Quote:
What exasperates me is when people use it as a negative (i.e., saying "not organic" when referring to things made up organic matter). If they say "it is not organically grown," ok, that is understandable, but if they flatly state that a hunk of organic matter is not organic, and adamantly refuse to accept the other meaning of the word... well, that can create a paradox that could end the world as we know it!!!
NOw we start to get into another matter: will pesticides actually enter into the boundary of the 'organism'-under-scrutiny at all?!?!
That isn't a question that I myself am equipped to answer, however, I am inclined to believe that synthetic compounds that are spread onto an 'organism' and onto the soil that the organism uses for nutrients, actually DO become part of the organism itself . .
and definitely, in the case of cows INJECTED with these synthetic compounds . .
and with genetically manipulated (ie: synthetically altered) organisms,
so, I think that you could rightly say that:
if, in fact, the molecular make-up of these organisms became admixt with the synthetic chemical compounds that are no longer 'Organic' but are 'Synthesized compounds' then one could NOT rightly say that the Organism in question remains entirely 'Organic', thusly it would be right to say that it becomes 'not Organic' and even "partly Synthetic"!!!
I hate to be a stickler, but I love to be a stickler-who's right . . .the above contradicts:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
When considered that the implicit context is one where the term 'Organic' is used in the manner I have discussed it . . . and guess what, In quotiddian life that is the predominant and commonly understood context.
and since 'Truth', when considering such things as 'context' is not really appropriate and 'universal' anymore, we could, following the great Philosopher J.L. Austin, say: 'the use of the term 'Organic' is fellicitous within the context of daily life and usage'
[/B]
Actually, since I stated that both "I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic" and "I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide" are both true statements, in this context the meaning of the word organic is obviously "relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic mater". In this case no other meaning can be logically reached.
Quote:
in order for those 'truism' to be true (or fellicitous) the context would have to be the restrictive discourse of a chem-lab . . . or perhaps your house.
Humm, it is not just at my house or a chim-lab, I think we have a generation gap here.
When I was working in the health-food industry back in the early eighties, the only place you could get organically grown produce was at a health-food store, or sometimes a farmer's market. The term "Organically Grown Produce, did not really become popular until the mid-eighties. The common use of the contraction of "organically grown vegetables" to just "organic vegetables" came about even later (and is the one I truly object to).
Most of the people I know who were born before the seventies think that the term "organic vegetables" is silly, like saying wet water. When you say the word "organic" the first thing that come to mind to us is organic matter (which by the way is still the top definition in the dictionaries).
People born in the eighties grew up with an Organic Vegetables Section in their local market, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word organic is "food grown without the use of pesticides or chemicals."
The education level also comes into play, but I think it is more of a generational gap than anything else.
Actually, since I stated that both "I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic" and "I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide" are both true statements, in this context the meaning of the word organic is obviously "relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic mater". In this case no other meaning can be logically reached.
Humm, it is not just at my house or a chim-lab, I think we have a generation gap here.
When I was working in the health-food industry back in the early eighties, the only place you could get organically grown produce was at a health-food store, or sometimes a farmer's market. The term "Organically Grown Produce, did not really become popular until the mid-eighties. The common use of the contraction of "organically grown vegetables" to just "organic vegetables" came about even later (and is the one I truly object to).
Most of the people I know who were born before the seventies think that the term "organic vegetables" is silly, like saying wet water. When you say the word "organic" the first thing that come to mind to us is organic matter (which by the way is still the top definition in the dictionaries).
People born in the eighties grew up with an Organic Vegetables Section in their local market, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word organic is "food grown without the use of pesticides or chemicals."
The education level also comes into play, but I think it is more of a generational gap than anything else.
Comments
Or
Originally posted by Res
I just find it annoying. It is a perversion of our language that is misleading, confusing, and causes people to make provably false statements.
It is just one of my many pet peeves. I have a rather large collection of them.
I think that you do't actually understand language.
in fact, you apparently did not understand the language I very clearly used.
A carrot grown with the aid of Synthetic Chemical compounds no longer qualifies for the catagory of Organic as it is being used and defined through standards set up by USE OF LANGUAGE, consumers, growers and now, the government.
To stick to this notion that 'well, the carrot underneath the synthesized chemical compounds is still Organic' Is not only a silly substantive notion of word definitions it is a mistaken usage of a term . . . as terms are defined through usage over-time.
To do so is to believe that the 'meaning' of a word is something that hovers inside the word, or object denoted, like some kind of absolute soul of the word . . . that isn't how language gets meaning: that isn't what definitions 'mean'. That is a bad habit of thought that, thankfully, thinkers (philosophers for instance) have gotten over.
The term Organic, when applied in a farming/food distribution/consumer environment is very clearly DEFINITE: defined by the use which is now, happily, circumscribed by STANDARDS.
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics is 'Organic' because it is still a growth process, and gee I am so clever and I took 'Organic-chemistry' and gee isn't everything 'Organic?' . .is simply missunderstanding . .
in other words: wrong
read the above and my other post closely and you might learn something
By the way: if everything was one thing, in other words, if everything fell under the domain of one word or concept, what would differentiate one thing from another?
If everything was paper-mache, then how would we define Cheetos or Ink or freedom?
Originally posted by pfflam
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics...
I can go along with a lot of what you've said about how words have and acquire meaning. I'm also glad that the old usage of "organic" in product labeling was upheld. But I can't go along with the overwrought fear of applying genetics to agriculture that your use of all-caps WORSE implies.
All of the food we eat is the result of random genetic manipulation by Nature Herself. The only real advantage of natural "organic" foods is that we're somewhat more likely to be reasonably well adapted to the constituents of natural foods, in that our ancestors, who had nothing else to eat, managed to live at least long enough to reproduce and nurture their young while eating such foods.
Hoping to live to 100, in great health, because you eat only organic foods? Well, there's nothing in our evolutionary past that's going to insure that organic foods have any such wonderfully healthy characteristics. Such foods are only proven to be good enough to keep us going for maybe 20-40 years, typical lifespans over the course of human evolution.
We're probably only genetically well-adapted to the natural foods of a particular region, or of a few regions inhabited by our ancestors. Who knows, for example, what eating all-natural organic oranges, brocolli, and tofu together in the same meal might do to us? Has there ever been a study done to make sure that combo is safe? None of our ancestors' genetic profiles were ever tested against such exotic combinations of foods from far-flung regions. Maybe that combination of foods, done frequently, would reduct average lifespan a year or two or ten. Who knows? No one will probably ever study such a thing.
While there are indeed some good reasons to exercise caution in regard to our new forays into genetic engineering of our food supply (some dealing with the health of the environment, not just the healthfulness of the food), I think that the overwhelming objection to such technology is more often fueled by a simplistic "Nature -- GOOD! Artificial -- BAD!" attitude.
I'll take a chemical-laden Diet Coke over an all-natural cup of hemlock tea any day.
If we force-fed rats megadoses of parsely or papaya, the same way we test artificial food ingredients, would you really be shocked to find out that these Gifts of Gaia could also be said to "cause cancer" or other maladies?
There are many things about the foods we eat, about agribusiness, that we're doing wrong. But, given that humans now live more than twice as long as when humans had nothing but all-natural, wholesome, blessed-by-Mother-Nature organic food to eat, one has to at least consider that "artificial" doesn't always have to equal "bad", and that maybe we've used technology to do a few things right.
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that you do't actually understand language.
in fact, you apparently did not understand the language I very clearly used.
-snip-
To say that the carot grown with synthetics, or WORSE, that is itself synthetically manipulated through genetics is 'Organic' because it is still a growth process, and gee I am so clever and I took 'Organic-chemistry' and gee isn't everything 'Organic?' . .is simply missunderstanding . .
in other words: wrong
read the above and my other post closely and you might learn something
LOL -- yes I understood exactly what you said -- even the big words
Let us go over what you said:
Why is the use of the term 'Organic' 'intolerable'?
Not only is it an appropriate term, it is incorrect that foods grown with pesticides are 'Organic':
Simply put, Pesticides are 'SYNTHETIC', they come from chemical compounds that have been synthesized . . . they are no longer 'organic'
Right, pesticides are synthetic.
if the distinction one wants to make is Synthetic vs untouched(by synthesized compounds)-unprocessed-growth . . .
You want to distinguish between food raised with the use of synthetic materials and food raised without the use of synthetic materials. I'm with you so far...
which we will, out of brilliant choice of wordage, and lack of a decent replacement term,
Ah, here we have disagreement - it was an idiotic choice of wordage, and Synthetic Free or its like would have been a much better replacement term.
and, due to the accretion of understanding which comes from common usage, use the term 'ORGANIC' to name the difference of said growth process from 'Synthetic' -which, again, means grown with the aid of 'synthesized chemical compounds or processes!!
More disagreement: Synthetic does not mean "grown with the aid of 'synthesized chemical compounds or processes" It means : Relating to, involving, or of the nature of synthesis.
Ok let's see if you can grasp this:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
You cannot invalidate those statements. Try to understand that one common meaning of a word does not invalidate another common meaning of the word.
The problem I have with using organic to mean "grown without the use of synthetic pesticides of fertilizers" is that it creates a paradox, and that is why I did not like the term long before it came into common usage.
Uh, by the way, about the genetics part you just mentioned -- do know how much of the food we eat has been synthetically engineered by humans? From Hybrid corn and grains to selective breeding -- we have artificially been playing around with genetics of our food for thousands of years.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Pet peeves are the worst!
LOL - You are so right. And you want to know what's really scary? This is one started about 30 years ago...
Originally posted by Res
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
No, it is not difficult to 'invalidate' these statements: considering the context of usage the term "Organic" means sprayed with pesticide.
You may not like it but that is the way it is. . . . consequently, your statement is not true.
And there is a difference between husbanding and selective breeding, and cross-breeding plants etc . . .and reaching into the genetic code of one species, assuming that we have the right genes for 'glow in the dark' and only for that, and then putting that into a rabbit.
and Shetline, I object to your condescending tone with regards to the reasons that I choose to eat 'Oraganic' foods when possible . . . I don't expect to live any longer . . .but I do feel better . . . but mostly, I buy these foods becaue I don't my daughter, who drinks a buttload of milk getting filled up with nerve toxins and or growth hormones and etc . .
I am also not too worried about genetics as far as ingesting them is concerned, allthough the effect on the environment can be very very drastic: just imagine some of these genetic salmo escaping from the hatchery-farm and having some strange ass uncounted upon genetic anomoly from some other species and it gets loose in the wild!! and there is definitely drift with genetic corn pollen, and not to mention the monoculture and ready-round-up catastrophe that is ongoing!!! . . . but eating them . .. I'm not too worried . . though I do, if I can avoid them.
Originally posted by pfflam
No, it is not difficult to 'invalidate' these statements: considering the context of usage the term "Organic" means sprayed with pesticide.
You may not like it but that is the way it is. . . . consequently, your statement is not true.
*sigh*
They were my statements in my context and both totally true. To say otherwise is to call me a lier.
You really seem to be having difficulty understanding that words can have more then one meaning... Is english your native language?
Originally posted by Res
*sigh*
They were my statements in my context and both totally true. To say otherwise is to call me a lier.
The problem here, is that your context isn't the generally accepted context, the generally accepted context is what pfflam mentioned, that's why your statements are "false", to anyone other than you(and others that share the same pet peeve)
Quote:
You really seem to be having difficulty understanding that words can have more then one meaning...
heh, that's exactly what you're having a problem with too!
well, that is to say, you don't want to accept that organic has multiple meanings, one of them not relating to your usage or definition, but rather to 'synthfree' foods.
oh well, I think you're both being stubborn and nit picky.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
heh, that's exactly what you're having a problem with too!
well, that is to say, you don't want to accept that organic has multiple meanings, one of them not relating to your usage or definition, but rather to 'synthfree' foods.
oh well, I think you're both being stubborn and nit picky.
Stubborn and nit picky? Yep.
But I do accept that one of the meanings of the word Organic has become "food that has been grown without the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers" -- I don't particularly like it, but I accept it and use the term often (I am a strong supporter of local organic farmers).
What exasperates me is when people use it as a negative (i.e., saying "not organic" when referring to things made up organic matter). If they say "it is not organically grown," ok, that is understandable, but if they flatly state that a hunk of organic matter is not organic, and adamantly refuse to accept the other meaning of the word... well, that can create a paradox that could end the world as we know it!!!
Truthfully, the only people that I've ever run into in the real world that had a problem with accepting both meanings of the word are "health-food as a religion" types (I worked in the health-food business for several years, and only ran into a few of them).
Originally posted by Res
Stubborn and nit picky? Yep.
But I do accept that one of the meanings of the word Organic has become "food that has been grown without the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers" -- I don't particularly like it, but I accept it and use the term often (I am a strong supporter of local organic farmers).
I hate to be a stickler, but I love to be a stickler-who's right . . .the above contradicts:Quote:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
When considered that the implicit context is one where the term 'Organic' is used in the manner I have discussed it . . . and guess what, In quotiddian life that is the predominant and commonly understood context.
and since 'Truth', when considering such things as 'context' is not really appropriate and 'universal' anymore, we could, following the great Philosopher J.L. Austin, say: 'the use of the term 'Organic' is fellicitous within the context of daily life and usage'
in order for those 'truism' to be true (or fellicitous) the context would have to be the restrictive discourse of a chem-lab . . . or perhaps your house.
Quote:
What exasperates me is when people use it as a negative (i.e., saying "not organic" when referring to things made up organic matter). If they say "it is not organically grown," ok, that is understandable, but if they flatly state that a hunk of organic matter is not organic, and adamantly refuse to accept the other meaning of the word... well, that can create a paradox that could end the world as we know it!!!
NOw we start to get into another matter: will pesticides actually enter into the boundary of the 'organism'-under-scrutiny at all?!?!
That isn't a question that I myself am equipped to answer, however, I am inclined to believe that synthetic compounds that are spread onto an 'organism' and onto the soil that the organism uses for nutrients, actually DO become part of the organism itself . .
and definitely, in the case of cows INJECTED with these synthetic compounds . .
and with genetically manipulated (ie: synthetically altered) organisms,
so, I think that you could rightly say that:
if, in fact, the molecular make-up of these organisms became admixt with the synthetic chemical compounds that are no longer 'Organic' but are 'Synthesized compounds' then one could NOT rightly say that the Organism in question remains entirely 'Organic', thusly it would be right to say that it becomes 'not Organic' and even "partly Synthetic"!!!
--QED
.
Originally posted by pfflam
I hate to be a stickler, but I love to be a stickler-who's right . . .the above contradicts:
True statement: I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic.
True statement: I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide.
When considered that the implicit context is one where the term 'Organic' is used in the manner I have discussed it . . . and guess what, In quotiddian life that is the predominant and commonly understood context.
and since 'Truth', when considering such things as 'context' is not really appropriate and 'universal' anymore, we could, following the great Philosopher J.L. Austin, say: 'the use of the term 'Organic' is fellicitous within the context of daily life and usage'
[/B]
Actually, since I stated that both "I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic" and "I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide" are both true statements, in this context the meaning of the word organic is obviously "relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic mater". In this case no other meaning can be logically reached.
in order for those 'truism' to be true (or fellicitous) the context would have to be the restrictive discourse of a chem-lab . . . or perhaps your house.
Humm, it is not just at my house or a chim-lab, I think we have a generation gap here.
When I was working in the health-food industry back in the early eighties, the only place you could get organically grown produce was at a health-food store, or sometimes a farmer's market. The term "Organically Grown Produce, did not really become popular until the mid-eighties. The common use of the contraction of "organically grown vegetables" to just "organic vegetables" came about even later (and is the one I truly object to).
Most of the people I know who were born before the seventies think that the term "organic vegetables" is silly, like saying wet water. When you say the word "organic" the first thing that come to mind to us is organic matter (which by the way is still the top definition in the dictionaries).
People born in the eighties grew up with an Organic Vegetables Section in their local market, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word organic is "food grown without the use of pesticides or chemicals."
The education level also comes into play, but I think it is more of a generational gap than anything else.
Originally posted by Res
Actually, since I stated that both "I have never consumed a carrot that was not organic" and "I have consumed many carrots that were sprayed with a pesticide" are both true statements, in this context the meaning of the word organic is obviously "relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic mater". In this case no other meaning can be logically reached.
Humm, it is not just at my house or a chim-lab, I think we have a generation gap here.
When I was working in the health-food industry back in the early eighties, the only place you could get organically grown produce was at a health-food store, or sometimes a farmer's market. The term "Organically Grown Produce, did not really become popular until the mid-eighties. The common use of the contraction of "organically grown vegetables" to just "organic vegetables" came about even later (and is the one I truly object to).
Most of the people I know who were born before the seventies think that the term "organic vegetables" is silly, like saying wet water. When you say the word "organic" the first thing that come to mind to us is organic matter (which by the way is still the top definition in the dictionaries).
People born in the eighties grew up with an Organic Vegetables Section in their local market, and the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word organic is "food grown without the use of pesticides or chemicals."
The education level also comes into play, but I think it is more of a generational gap than anything else.
Born well before the seventies.
and Im still right . . .