Richard,
To suggest to a pure "believer" that the scientific process requires you to expect that the things you have "faith" in should be overturned, and indeed to work towards that end, is a "faith" so strange to him, that the use of an alternative word seems to be indicated in the interests of clarity. The difficulty is, that in English, "faith", and its cohort, "belief", are used as portmanteaux words into which many tend to hide their "buried assumptions".
I do not find the use of a new term to abbreviate, and indeed to describe, a complex thought or process alien at all. It happens in every complex field and is usually called "jargon". Jargon is useful, because it allows practioners to shortcut all the myriad qualifications that would otherwise be needed everytime one referred to a concept which is non-intuitive. Especially where the best descriptive terms necessarily overload conventional words in strained analogy.
An example is a conference call I had recently with a group of Russian neurosurgeons. My command of Russian, and their command of English were not good enough for us to discuss a particular problem. In fact, I suspect that we would have had difficulty even if they had been fluent in English as common language fails to "compartamentalize" anatomy adequately. By reverting to Latin names, we were, in a remarkable polyglot of languages, including French and German as needed, to comunicate perfectly adequately for the occasion. Likewise a computer engineer does not usually refer to a "hard disk" as a "non-removable platter storage unit". We all use the term hard disk to mean that, and understand that a "floppy disk" is something different even when the "floppy disk" is a 3.5" Stiffy... and not floppy at all.
If "phaith" is useful, it will be assimilated into the jargon, if it is not it will die. And time is, in my opinion, the only suitable judge. But if, as you have indicated, it is an obstacle to understanding, then it's use will not be sustained. As such, it would be better not to use it. Which naturally leads me to ask if you would you care to explain the grounds for your objection and perception of whatever "reality" we are discussing? I phail ( :-) ) to see how the creation of a new word which, of course, does not alter the meaning of the existing word, can be "insulting"? Or even "distancing". So I fail to see the point which is being made, and would like at least to try to understand it.
Hermit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Richard Brodie
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 1:38 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: FAQ: version 1.0
I realize that's your understanding, but I don't think it jibes with reality.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Carl Wagener
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 10:07 PM
To: 'virus@lucifer.com'
Subject: RE: virus: FAQ: version 1.0
I understand it to be that the believers have dogmatic "faith" and the unbelievers doubting "phaith". So the original word is not redefined and carries its usual meaning. Thus, if it is insulting, we insult ourselves. Which like remembering to laugh at your self, is not all bad.
TheHermit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Richard Brodie
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:58 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: FAQ: version 1.0
I agree... these variant spellings have been tried before and they land
as
insulting and distancing to the very people we would like to reach.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Wade T.Smith
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 1:38 PM
To: Church of Virus
Subject: Re: virus: FAQ: version 1.0
And I put in my two cents here and say, again- stop coining words. It's juvenile unless it's not. In this case, IMHO, it is. 'Phat' will die an ignominious death if it hasn't already and so should 'phaith'. Phooey.