From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< November 20	<< Oct | November | Dec >>	November 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

Contents 1 November 21 1.1 Translation into Korean? 1.2 Japanese translation 1.3 Fallacy name?

[edit] November 21

[edit] Translation into Korean?

How might one say the following in Korean? (This is not a homework project, but rather a home-maintenance project).

In an emergency, it should be possible to exit the building through the front door, even when that door is locked.

Thanks, Vectro 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

비상시에는 정문이 잠겨있더라도 정문을 통해 밖으로 나갈 수 있습니다. --Kjoonlee 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 대문 is better, if it's a home. 비상시에는 대문이 잠겨있더라도 대문을 통해 밖으로 나갈 수 있습니다. --Kjoonlee 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese translation

Can somebody help translate this article ja:アリーン冷却器? --HappyCamper 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Until next time: Wikipedia:Translation_into_English#Japanese-to-English 惑乱 分からん 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you just mean to say "next time". : )  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, what I really want to know is whether that article is the same as our Allihn condenser. Yes? --HappyCamper 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems. Both articles mension Felix Richard Allihn and their description of internal are similar. I have added interlanguage links to them. --Kusunose 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy name?

Not sure if this should be in Language RefDesk. If it's in the wrong place, please tell me where it should be.

Often I hear from others when I criticize their work the phrase "well let's see you do any better". For an example, maybe a sculpture or something someone made that is just awful. I'll say "wow, that looks really bad" and they'll say "well I'd like to see you do better!". In essence, they are saying that because I can't do something that means I can't criticize their work. This HAS to be an informal fallacy of some sort. If it is, what's the name of it? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an answer, but I expect it's simply a reaction to judgmental language. If you said "I don't like that sculpture" rather than describing it as "bad", maybe they would accept that more readily. JackofOz 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticism would be even better. :) --Kjoonlee 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, it happens even when I give constructive criticism. I know it's logically idiotic (just because I haven't built a car doesn't mean I can't judge one, only that I am a bit less qualified to talk about technicalities) I just can't find the word for it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's mildly off-topic.
• It could be an implicit ad-hominem attack.
• It looks as if it involves denying the antecedent
  1. If you can do it yourself, then you can offer constructive criticism.
  2. You can't do it yourslf.
  3. Therefore you can't offer constructive criticism. ← ERROR

--Kjoonlee 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My contribution was indeed constructive. I provided an alternative that I know from experience often works better. And it was not intended as a criticism, merely a suggestion. And I did qualify it by saying it's not an answer to the question. That in itself doesn't make it an invalid or inappropriate comment. JackofOz 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Kjoonlee's response - they meant that constructive criticism is even better than "I don't like that sculpture", not that your comment was not constructive. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about that. I shouldn't have said it that way; I should have made clear what I was talking about. --Kjoonlee 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe I was a little too defensive. Thanks for the clarification.  :) JackofOz 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to artistic creativity, I wonder how constructive criticism would work. History is full of examples of what we now consider masterpieces that, at the time they were created, were ill-appreciated. Had Beethoven or Michelangelo listened to their critics and changed their conceptions to fit the prevailing view of how things should sound or look, no matter how well intended those suggestions might have been, we would all have been a lot worse off. Creativity is inherently revolutionary in its essence, and is therefore often inimical to contemporary standards. True creative art survives despite such challenges. How does a non-artist suggest, creatively or otherwise, how a sculpture might be better made, or a symphony better constructed, or a book better written? They can certainly express their opinion of it ("it is good/bad"), or state their feeling ("I do/don't like it") - but how to get to the next step ("Maybe it would be better if ....") without being arrogantly presumptuous and putting themselves in the position of knowing better than the artist themself? JackofOz 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a reverse appeal to authority. That is, they are saying you are not an authority, so have no right to comment. Their standard for being an authority is also faulty, as many people spend their lives critiquing things which they themselves are incapable of creating. And, if only artists are qualified to comment on art, then the rest of us should have nothing to do with it, just let them argue amongst themselves. StuRat 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Any layperson is entitled to comment on an artistic creation, whether or not they have any relevant training or skills. It's how they comment that can make the difference between acceptance and rejection of the comment. JackofOz 23:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any fallacy here. Fallacies are about faulty reasoning, not false conclusions per se. The way I'd formalize the argument, if one is indeed implied, is:

For all X and Y, if X is in a position to offer criticism related to art Y, then (it must be true that) X is skilled in art Y

Wooty is not skilled in art Z

Wooty is not in a position to offer criticism related to art Z

The argument is valid, but the conclusion may be false nevertheless because one or both of the premises may be false. (Validity is a different concept from soundness). For example, the first premise may simply be false. Or it could be true but the person making the argument is mistaken about its meaning and therefore the truth of the second premise — It may indeed be true that anyone in a position to offer criticism (whatever that means) related to art Y must be skilled in the art, but being skilled in the art need not mean being good at execution, just versed in the theory. So you may be skilled in the art without being expert at execution. In that case, you can have a false conclusion despite a valid argument. --71.244.101.6 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The very essence of law is illogic. "The ArbCom says so, so it must be true" is appeal to authority. One must say "The ArbCom says so, so respect it!" -- DLL ^{.. T} 22:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to authority can be a correct form of reasoning, but it is NOT a valid deductive argument, so it does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion. Employed correctly, the reasoning goes like this: "Expert X in subject Y formed an informed opinion that statement Z (on a matter in subject Y) is true. Therefore we have a good reason to believe that Z is true." Having a good reasoning to believe some statement is true does not mean that the statement is true. --71.244.101.6 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)