No it doesn’t. It takes the word “all” as used in everyday language and pretends it is intended to be precisely the same as the logical “all” operator, which it of course it is not. It’s the worst kind of nitpicking, the kind of “all people who have a heart attack should go to a licensed hospital”—“nuh-uh, not if the hospital is on fire / not if they are billionaires with a fully equipped medical team in their attic”.
Not even that. It takes the zero-article plural as used in everyday language and pretends it is intended to be precisely the same as the logical “all” operator, which it of course it is not.
No it doesn’t. It takes the word “all” as used in everyday language and pretends it is intended to be precisely the same as the logical “all” operator, which it of course it is not. It’s the worst kind of nitpicking, the kind of “all people who have a heart attack should go to a licensed hospital”—“nuh-uh, not if the hospital is on fire / not if they are billionaires with a fully equipped medical team in their attic”.
I am looking at a claim in a scientific paper. The word “all” in such a claim is universally interpreted by doctors and scientists as being universally quantified. That is how other scientists interpret it when they cite a paper. That is how the FDA treats it when they deny you a drug or a medical procedure.
This is not everyday language. This is a claim to have rigorously proven something.
Even if you don’t focus on the word “all”, which you should, but I accept that you are ignorant of how scientific discourse works, it is still the fact that the paper did not provide ANY evidence that food dye does not affect behavior. You can fail an F-test for a hypothesis even with data that supports the hypothesis.
(...) “all” in such a claim is universally interpreted by doctors and scientists as being universally quantified (...) I accept that you are ignorant of how scientific discourse works
Not universally interpreted by doctors and scientists. I’m gonna go ahead and say that you have no idea what you’re talking about and go off of what you think “all” should mean in ‘all’ the sciences, not what it defaults to in actual medical papers. Context!
No medical publications whatsoever can use the “all” quantifier without restricting the scope, implicitly or explicitly. Whenever you find an “all” quantifier without a restriction specified, that’s at best a lazy omission or at worst an automatic error. What, a parasympathomimetic drug will slow down a subject’s heart rate for all humans? Have you checked them all?
“Scientists” publishing in medicine don’t get all excited (oooh an “all” quantifier) like you whenever they come across a claim that’s unwisely worded using “all” without explicitly restricting the scope.
Bowing out, I’ll leave you the last word if you want it.
No it doesn’t. It takes the word “all” as used in everyday language and pretends it is intended to be precisely the same as the logical “all” operator, which it of course it is not. It’s the worst kind of nitpicking, the kind of “all people who have a heart attack should go to a licensed hospital”—“nuh-uh, not if the hospital is on fire / not if they are billionaires with a fully equipped medical team in their attic”.
What on Earth is “important” about such a point?
Not even that. It takes the zero-article plural as used in everyday language and pretends it is intended to be precisely the same as the logical “all” operator, which it of course it is not.
But … but … Science?
They tend to be used either for keeping crows from eating your crops or making rivals look bad by misrepresenting them.
I am looking at a claim in a scientific paper. The word “all” in such a claim is universally interpreted by doctors and scientists as being universally quantified. That is how other scientists interpret it when they cite a paper. That is how the FDA treats it when they deny you a drug or a medical procedure.
This is not everyday language. This is a claim to have rigorously proven something.
Even if you don’t focus on the word “all”, which you should, but I accept that you are ignorant of how scientific discourse works, it is still the fact that the paper did not provide ANY evidence that food dye does not affect behavior. You can fail an F-test for a hypothesis even with data that supports the hypothesis.
Not universally interpreted by doctors and scientists. I’m gonna go ahead and say that you have no idea what you’re talking about and go off of what you think “all” should mean in ‘all’ the sciences, not what it defaults to in actual medical papers. Context!
No medical publications whatsoever can use the “all” quantifier without restricting the scope, implicitly or explicitly. Whenever you find an “all” quantifier without a restriction specified, that’s at best a lazy omission or at worst an automatic error. What, a parasympathomimetic drug will slow down a subject’s heart rate for all humans? Have you checked them all?
“Scientists” publishing in medicine don’t get all excited (oooh an “all” quantifier) like you whenever they come across a claim that’s unwisely worded using “all” without explicitly restricting the scope.
Bowing out, I’ll leave you the last word if you want it.