# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/421 "2010-12-12T07:00:41Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > There are some aggressively shut down minds here, and that’s fine. > > But in terms of the world at large, and particularly the scientific community, the researchers, the doctors, the physicists - well, as a group they do not take the same view that the Dopers Who Know do, and that was the point of my OP: we do not have an agreed-upon truth that has been overwhelmingly approved by the vast majority of the people who are really examining the question. THEY do not speak in the absolutes that the Dopers Who Know do. So, one last time: it’s not accurate to say: There is no afterlife. It’s not accurate to say: there is an afterlife. It’s only accurate to say what your opinion is and then explain why. > > (And by the way, your Supreme Knowingness would be SO much more interesting and impressive if you could show that it came from ANYWHERE other than your own nether regions. Really, this aggressive “I AM TELLING YOU WHAT REALITY IS” stuff is pretty laughable, guys. And frankly, no matter what the background information says or doesn’t say, the fact that so many of you DO have that degree of arrogance and complete disinterest in making the tiniest effort to support your assertions automatically downgrades any argument you make. It’s kinda bizarre, actually.) Now _that_ sounds like someone who is sitting on the fence concerning this issue, yesseree bob. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/422 "2010-12-12T07:01:16Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > rofl.. You didn’t even read the statement remotely correctly… Nice. 😃 Yes I did. You were just wrong. > [@](#): > > "If you can prove something is logically impossible, you ultimately prove that something is irrefutably impossible (without resorting to baseless implications of being omniscient in regards to the physical universe as you are so fond of doing). 1. You said your hypotehsis of a magical sorceror creating the universe was “based on logic.” It is not. It’s actually _il_logical to hypothesize magic based on nothing. 2. Your magic sorceror would not change the physical laws of the universe or make an “afterlife” possible. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/423 "2010-12-12T07:03:51Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Surely one of you folks can straighten these poor misguided people out? Not a damn thing. Deepak Chopra. Snirk. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/424 "2010-12-12T07:05:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > There are some aggressively shut down minds here, and that’s fine. > > But in terms of the world at large, and particularly the scientific community, the researchers, the doctors, the physicists - well, as a group they do not take the same view that the Dopers Who Know do Get back to us when they actually prove something. There are scientists who believe in creationsism too. This is basically the same thing. People with post-graduate degrees are not immune to woo. Some of them even believe in sky gods. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/425 "2010-12-12T07:17:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Now _that_ sounds like someone who is sitting on the fence concerning this issue, yesseree bob. What is it you think you see there, Czar? Well, I know what you _think_ you see, what I don’t know is _why_ you think you see it. But actually…it is beginning to dawn how you and others get to your presumption regarding my beliefs (which are just plain weird, by the way); your own certainty, absolute aggressive, sometimes angry, blind and unsupported **True Knowledge** says a great deal about your own needs, beliefs and biases: you are obviously not comfortable with uncertainty..duh. The thing I failed to see before this moment is that your discomfort with uncertainty extends beyond yourself; you are so ill at ease with it that you cannot imagine or accept that it could actually exist in others. You are wedded to your own world view and, in your super-certain way, are super-certain that others must also need certainty as much as you do. But you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/426 "2010-12-12T07:18:32Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What is it you think you see there, Czar? Well, I know what you _think_ you see, what I don’t know is _why_ you think you see it. > > But actually…it is beginning to dawn how you and others get to your presumption regarding my beliefs (which are just plain weird, by the way); your own certainty, absolute aggressive, sometimes angry, blind and unsupported **True Knowledge** says a great deal about your own needs, beliefs and biases: you are obviously not comfortable with uncertainty..duh. > > The thing I failed to see before this moment is that your discomfort with uncertainty extends beyond yourself; you are so ill at ease with it that you cannot imagine or accept that it could actually exist in others. You are wedded to your own world view and, in your super-certain way, are super-certain that others must also need certainty as much as you do. > > But you’re wrong. _Deepak Chopra_. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/427 "2010-12-12T07:22:28Z")
I’m pretty sure you meant to put that in the ad hominem thread as a classic example. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/428 "2010-12-12T07:28:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m pretty sure you meant to put that in the ad hominem thread as a classic example. He was _your_ example of a right-thinking scholar. You want we should go past the headliner and examine some of the other “great thinkers” of that conference? I’m sorry, but I’m still having trouble with NDEs, the least among all the possible reasons there are, being the stumbling block to your dismissing the religionist line of thought. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/429 "2010-12-12T07:29:58Z")
Stoid, you believe that the afterlife should have to be considered by default plausible. That it takes evidence to \*disprove \*it. You do not believe that Smurfs require evidence to disprove them. The only reason you give as to why the afterlife gets this special treatment is that\* a lot of people believe in the afterlife\*. This is clearly an argument to popularity, and you say that you care about logical debate. Instead of addressing this you ignore criticism and deflect. Why don’t you address the fact that you are being illogical? Would you rather \*pretend \*to be right than \*actually \*be right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/430 "2010-12-12T07:52:58Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m pretty sure you meant to put that in the ad hominem thread as a classic example. Laughing at your cited authorities is not _ad hominem_. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/431 "2010-12-12T07:56:03Z")
Stoid, your recent posts are full of ad hominems, ad populums, and appeals to authority. To give an example of each (all paraphrases, I’m not wading through walls of text to find the quotes). “You’re not a scientist, you’re a random doper, your argument is therefore weak” - ad hominem. “Look how many people are at the woo-woo conference - it must have merit” - ad populum. “It’s in the Lancet, it must be true” - appeal to authority. If only someone would take the time to start a thread about logical fallacies… ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/432 "2010-12-12T08:50:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Stoid, your recent posts are full. Well, this is Great Debates. We have a long tradition of what are in fact Appeals to Authority. That would be the very core of “Cite?”. It is unavoidable because very few subjects can be effectively or honestly debated with pure rhetoric logic and argument vs. rhetoric, logic and argument. When you argument is stated as “We’ve proved…” “It’s a proven fact” “It’s been shown to be impossible” - you’re talking about real-world facts. Facts about what real life people have done, what they’ve said, written, studied…\*\*and proved. \*\* When you assert that something has been proved, it’s on you to demonstrate that you are not pulling your proof from a dream you had last night. As it stands, now that I’ve gone and checked into all these assertions, that’s the best guess as to where all this “proof” came from. You may not care for my citations - I didn’t expect you to, since they show that most of what you’ve been selling is not exactly correct. But at least I’ve provided boatloads throughout the thread. What I’ve gotten back is nothing but a bunch of dopers announcing and declaring that X is Proved. Evidently we are expected to stand in awe of these announcements and declarations because…ummm…because…err… why is anyone supposed to accept these absolute facts that probably came to you into a dream, exactly? Are we supposed to be convinced by the unshakable nature of your certainty? It is impressive, I grant you, but it’s not that much more impressive than the certainty of snake handlers. Perhaps the sneering dismissals of real citations to actual information are intended to act as a veil of authenticity to the otherwise naked announcements coming from the We Know contingent? Or maybe we’re supposed to bow down in supplication to the Almighty Knowing you clearly demonstrate by…what..being able to type? I admit I’m stumped. So I guess I’ll just have to accept that I’ve obviously missed my opportunity to sit at the feet of the All-Knowing Beings that have deigned to visit this lowly little internet forum and cast their Pearls of Mighty and Perfect Wisdom before pathetic citing swine like me. Oh well, I’m sure I’ll manage somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/433 "2010-12-12T08:55:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Stoid, you believe that the afterlife should have to be considered by default plausible. That it takes evidence to \*disprove \*it. Now I realize that you are among The Great And Powerful All Knowing Beings…but one of the teensy weensy areas that you do not have Perfect Wisdom about happens to be my mind,as you’ve demonstrated repeatedly. So go ahead and argue with LoboStoid…she believes whatever you want. But the real Stoid has made her position clear. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/434 "2010-12-12T09:07:36Z")
In addition to your utter and amazing failures in logic, you’ve also changed someone’s post in a quote box. That isn’t allowed. > [@Stoid](#): > > Well, this is Great Debates. We have a long tradition of what are in fact Appeals to Authority. That would be the very core of “Cite?”. Asking for a cite from an actual authority isn’t an appeal to authority. Do you actually know \*anything \*about logic? > [@](#): > > It is unavoidable because very few subjects can be effectively or honestly debated with pure rhetoric logic and argument vs. rhetoric, logic and argument. When you argument is stated as “We’ve proved…” “It’s a proven fact” “It’s been shown to be impossible” - you’re talking about real-world facts. Facts about what real life people have done, what they’ve said, written, studied…\*\*and proved. \*\* When you assert that something has been proved, it’s on you to demonstrate that you are not pulling your proof from a dream you had last night. As it stands, now that I’ve gone and checked into all these assertions, that’s the best guess as to where all this “proof” came from. Again, your standards for an afterlife are different than your standards for Smurfs. Why is that? > [@](#): > > You may not care for my citations - I didn’t expect you to, since they show that most of what you’ve been selling is not exactly correct. But at least I’ve provided boatloads throughout the thread. You have not offered a single citation that supports the existence of an afterlife. If you think you have, you are simply self-deluding. > [@](#): > > What I’ve gotten back is nothing but a bunch of dopers announcing and declaring that X is Proved. Evidently we are expected to stand in awe of these announcements and declarations because…ummm…because…err… why is anyone supposed to accept these absolute facts that probably came to you into a dream, exactly? Are we supposed to be convinced by the unshakable nature of your certainty? It is impressive, I grant you, but it’s not that much more impressive than the certainty of snake handlers. What you have gotten, among other things, is demonstrations that your acceptance of an afterlife as requiring proof to dismiss is based on nothing but an irrational appeal to popularity. But you’ve ignored that because you don’t want to actually debate, you want to sling your bullshit and not be questioned. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the sneering dismissals of real citations to actual information are intended to act as a veil of authenticity to the otherwise naked announcements coming from the We Know contingent? Or maybe we’re supposed to bow down in supplication to the Almighty Knowing you clearly demonstrate by…what..being able to type? You ignore when you are shown wrong and bury the response under random google-vomits. You are terrible at this. > [@](#): > > I admit I’m stumped. Running away and ignoring uneasy truths isn’t a good way to reduce that feeling. > [@](#): > > So I guess I’ll just have to accept that I’ve obviously missed my opportunity to sit at the feet of the All-Knowing Beings that have deigned to visit this lowly little internet forum and cast their Pearls of Mighty and Perfect Wisdom before pathetic citing swine like me. You simply attack when confronted with your own shortcomings. Why don’t you actually try to understand? > [@](#): > > Oh well, I’m sure I’ll manage somehow. Ignoring when you’re wrong is probably pretty easy, I wouldn’t worry how you’ll do. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/435 "2010-12-12T09:07:46Z")
Science is based on a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). 1. If P, then Q. 2. Q. 3. Therefore, P. I just disproved computers, rockets, and medicine. Humans can never obtain knowledge because reality is fundamentally inaccessible and our models are only what our flawed, evolved senses and intuition tell us is an–OW! Ow. My head hurts! Wait, OK, I’m better now. Sorry about that. So the afterlife has beer volcanoes, boobquakes, and stripper factories, yes? Where do I sign? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/436 "2010-12-12T09:11:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Now I realize that you are among The Great And Powerful All Knowing Beings…but one of the teensy weensy areas that you do not have Perfect Wisdom about happens to be my mind,as you’ve demonstrated repeatedly. > > So go ahead and argue with LoboStoid…she believes whatever you want. But the real Stoid has made her position clear. Your position (at least as you stated it in this thread) is exactly as I have said. Are you withdrawing that an afterlife requires evidence to disprove it? Are you admitting that an afterlife and Smurfs have the exact same level of evidence and should face the same level of evidence to accept either as real? Are you admitting that the popularity of a concept (like the afterlife) has nothing to do with the evidentiary burden associated with that concept? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/437 "2010-12-12T10:48:58Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Science is based on a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). 1. If P, then Q. 2. Q. 3. Therefore, P. I just disproved computers, rockets, and medicine. Humans can never obtain knowledge because reality is fundamentally inaccessible and our models are only what our flawed, evolved senses and intuition tell us is an–OW! Ow. My head hurts! Wait, OK, I’m better now. Sorry about that. So the afterlife has beer volcanoes, boobquakes, and stripper factories, yes? Where do I sign? It’s only a fallacy if you’re claiming that science provides absolute truth, which, as you rightly say, it cannot. As for your suggestion for the afterlife, it’s utterly ridiculous. Beer volcanoes? Who wants beer at the temperature of boiling lava? Fool 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/438 "2010-12-12T14:38:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain) > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I am curious as to use of the 😃 smilie after accusing him of not being able to comprehend a statement, then again after accusing him of lacking the ability to address valid points. Did you perhaps mean to use :dubious: or maybe :(, or is this really how you get your jollies? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/439 "2010-12-12T14:45:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Running away and ignoring uneasy truths isn’t a good way to reduce that feeling. Why do you call them “uneasy truths”? What are they? Beliefs? 😕 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/440 "2010-12-12T16:27:08Z")
**Stoid** , get your quotes right. Here’s what you say I said in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13216259&postcount=102): > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Stoid > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Fatwater Fewl > > Neuroscience provides **the hard evidence** for the assertion made by previous posters that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain; Since this is so, we can state confidently that consciousness ends with the death of brain. No room for an afterlife there. Here’s what I actually said: > [@](#): > > Neuroscience provides the hard evidence for the assertion made by previous posters that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain; changes (as caused by disease and trauma, for example) in specific regions of the brain change the expression of consciousness in predictable, verifiable ways (there is a great deal of easily attainable literature on the brain and the results of changes in it, check the science section of your local bookstore). Since this is so, we can state confidently that consciousness ends with the death of brain. No room for an afterlife there. Neuroscience writings which cover the damage and changes to which I refer include, for example, the works of Oliver Sacks, V. S. Ramachandran, Eric Kandel, and Alexander Luria, as well as numerous materials on the cases of Phineas Gage and H. M. **Note** that I did not and do not claim that any of the abovementioned say outright that there is no afterlife, but rather that the hard evidence – in other words, the **facts** about the brain that their work and the work of other neuroscientists has uncovered – allow us to conclude that consciousness ends with death. You keep talking about near death experiences as constituting evidence for something more than a physical basis for consciousness. But no NDE has ever been confirmed to be anything more than an hallucination, or, to put it more kindly, a dream. You may do well to ask yourself what possible effects various anesthetics might have on the brain’s grasp on reality, as well how the various theories about what dreams themselves are might apply to NDES. One more thing: _Deepak Chopra_? Come on. Oh, and **AHunter3** … I dispute this: > [@](#): > > Originally post by AHunter3 > Language is an artform, a body of terms into which concepts appear to be embedded, but into which we embed them as we use it. Those terms arose in an everyday context, although in specialized use groups of us, by being in specialized contexts, end up embedding them a bit differently. The notion that language consists of crystal clear denotative terms that “mean what they mean” is an illusory one. Language is _not_ an artform. Some uses to which language is put are artforms: poetry; fiction; rhetoric – these are artistic uses to which language is put, just as dance is an artistic use to which motion is put. But language itself is not an artform, nor are meanings as fluid as you imply. Words may be arbitrary sounds, but their meanings are not those sounds. A fox is a zorro is a renard is a lis: different sounds, yes, but the same meaning in each of those languages. I will grant you that a single word may hold different connotations for each of us; this is unavoidable as we can none of us ever have exactly the same experiences, and therefore we will have somewhat different associations that have aggregated for us around the same word. But the core meaning\*\* of the word is the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=23)