Semantics

What is a Semantic Discussion?

Often the term "semantic discussion" is used because you may mean the same thing as someone else but use a different word. A semantic discussion does not seem to be about the content but about something superficial. That doesn't do justice to semantics. After all, it's about whether you use the right words, and especially whether the definitions of both parties to the conversation (based on a discussion) still match. After all, every word is a reference, a symbol that points to something else, let's call that other the "concept" for a moment. (The term "understanding" is often used, but to me that is too much in the corner of "understanding, seeing, fathoming". The word "concept" tastes more neutral.)

Agreement on terminology

So, in a discussion, it is essential that the participants in a discussion use their words in the same way. If this is not the case, then there is no meaningful exchange of ideas. Sometimes speakers are sloppy in choosing their words, sometimes it turns out that they have a different concept in mind for the same word or vice versa. If you come across that, you first have to coordinate it with each other. Then you have a semantic discussion. The glossaries must match.
In social conversations, this is not so precise, where condoning an unfortunate choice of words is only cooperative. If something is really at stake, it is different. This is also the case in scientifically tinted conversations and articles.

Connotations, framing, nudging

Words are complex. They have connotations. These are concepts (or other words) with which they are consciously or unconsciously associated. By using words with negative connotations, you can "frame" well. For example, framing has a negative connotation, with which you can "nudge". We don't want to be nudged – we think. Because, of course, we would like to be confirmed or reassured. If that is the case, we can usually agree with the choice of words. We don't call it framing.
The positive framing of wind turbines and solar panels in the media will therefore escape most people because they are happy with it. Surely a solution will have to be found to the climate problem outlined by the same media, which, according to the media, is caused by CO2 emissions. This creates a narrative.

Sliding panels

Quite a few terms have shifted over the past two years. The word "critical" is considered more negative than before. "Critical journalism" used to be sharp, alert, investigative; Now "critical" seems to be the designation for someone who always has something to complain about, denies everything and is against everything.
For example, "Left" and "Right" are no longer what they used to be, the extreme rightists have shown themselves to be more progressive and idiosyncratic than the (extreme) leftists, who in turn have hijacked the right-wing concept of "totalitarianism" that has come into vogue.

Context also determines meaning. As society, the context of words, changes, so do the meanings. There are words that mean nothing and derive their value from what the listener makes of them. He would be able to deduce the intention from the context. So you have to know that context, you have to be able to assess the person who uses the word and how they relate to that context. Contexts are individual. You can define a common glossary, but it is more difficult with a context.

A good example is the sentence "There was a sanction on it, but it is now sanctioned." Sanctioning something does not mean anything in itself: it can mean both "approve" and "punish". The word "maar" and the Dutch idiom make it clear what is meant where. In practice, language users have little problem with this. Occasionally, perhaps, but once in a while that will solve itself by just as sloppy listening, oh well. No committees are going to look into that. No redefinition initiatives. Just communicate loosely and if you all want to agree with each other, that works fine. You will then say goodbye with the beneficial idea that you are in complete agreement while strictly speaking you have not been "critical" enough to put the crowbar in a hairline crack. This distinguishes social conversations from rational discussions.

Uncompromising science and conversation with compromises

In social conversations, the ideal end goal is that you all have the same opinion about something. The outcome of a sum may well be wrong, but as long as you agree on it, everything is fine. In rational discussions, however, by disagreeing with each other, you ultimately try to arrive at the correct outcome.

A conversation can be made easier if you shuffle around with the terms used. For example, by agreeing to shave off the sharp corners, you avoid cutting criticism of each other. Softening terms, agreeing that it actually means something else... Compromise is what a democracy lives on.

Compromises in communication. In other words: Compromised communication. That sounds different.

Terminology and Definition: Priority #1

A good example of this was the decision of the House of Representatives to equate the word 'positive test' with 'infection'. This was in response to a motion by Wybren van Haga to use both terms in accordance with the scientific definitions. That didn't go down well because those who wanted to count more infections thought it was a great idea to count positive tests as infections! After all, there were many more of them! (they thought, wasn't really like that) There will therefore be no further substantive discussion about it. Imagine, a substantive discussion – no, leave that to the experts, we are not going to take the place of the scientist.

It goes even further: friend and foe agree that an 'infection' does not necessarily imply an 'infection'. This is accurate enough in daily dealings, but if you go into depth, you will have to define your core concepts more sharply.

Van Haga should have made the difference between "positive PCR" and "infections", not "infections". A positive PCR (provided it is not a false positive) does indicate that someone has been in contact with the virus and that this is still demonstrable (i.e. infected with it).

There are three concepts at play (actually four)

A word can be contaminated. A contagious object has first become contaminated. Air can be contaminated. Your hair may be infected. Your hair is pre-eminently contaminated, there is always a lot of stuff in it. Your nose hair may be contaminated, the same goes for that. Your mucous membrane. All those examples don't say anything about an infection. A bulletproof vest with a dent or even a bullet in it says nothing about whether or not the person wearing it was injured. In the case of an infection, the situation is different:

In an infection, disease-causing microorganisms have entered your body and multiply and cause inflammation.

Gezondheidsplein.nl

1. Positive test
   This usually indicates whether there is virus present somewhere. Not always correct, so not 100% equatable to contamination.
2. Infection
   Presence of virus on an object
3. Infection
   Virus that causes inflammatory reaction(s) after penetration
4. Illness (or severity of the disease, if any)

Sloppy thinkers like mzelst believe that there should be no whining about definitions of key concepts, after all, we all want the same thing. "Agree", "speak with one voice" that is the idea behind it. Thinking about it doesn't fit in because before you know it, hairline cracks appear. Someone comes up with a critical note and we don't want that. Critical notes are experienced as difficult, while they are constructive: if your thesis is sound, you can reinforce it with the right rebuttal. If he is no good, you can try to strengthen him in a different way or look for a better one.

But then again, it wasn't like that. There were no inquisitive, curious scientists involved in the decision-making. They were all cancelled – if they were heard at all. There were mainly civil servants who followed the line of the ministry as a whole. White-collar soldiers. They kept their mouths shut when the minister wanted figures on the corona dashboard that did not do justice to reality.

The source is (for the umpteenth time, but very briefly now) at:

• Science – The failure of institutes and bodies that claim to act scientifically and show that they do not understand what science actually is. Organisations previously referred to as "excellent" such as the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the OMT, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Skepsis Foundation, regulators and umbrella bodies including their editorial boards such as the NTVG, etc. All turned out to be substandard.
  More about what science is in this article about scientific integrity
• Journalism – The above institutes have always served as a reference for journalists: you can check whether something is true on the RIVM website. Even when there was blatant nonsense and contradictions, journalists never asked investigative questions or consulted other sources. Editors refused attacks on the 'narrative', which led to the utter failure of Dutch journalism. This was particularly noticeable when they operated under the misleading label of "independent fact-checkers" (see https://onafhankelijkefeitencheckers.nl/). A gap was created in the market that alternative investigative channels and newspapers have jumped into, such as Flavio Pasquino's Blackbox with documentaries, interviews and now also his own TV show (3 times a week), or The Other Newspaper, which not only contain worse pieces than we are used to from our 'quality newspapers', but also much better ones. And in any case: made with integrity. With what we see on radio, TV and other MSM, that sometimes seems to be the question because when you see what passes by there... You can't be that stupid as a journalist.
• Politics – What can you expect from them? They are representatives of a people with an average IQ of 100 who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the media. Are they actually capable of crisis management in which science should perhaps take over for a while? A striking example is of course Rob Jetten, someone with a conviction to be jealous of, especially when you consider that he has zero knowledge of the dossier.
  On the other hand, are scientists doing better? With such 'scientists', civil servants appointed and paid by the government, it is lead to old iron. And those civil servants will not be driven off the plush either, see the persistent tweet campaigns of Marion Koopmans. The work of virologists remains crucial for the future, if you are to believe her.