Curious wrote:UB wrote:Time is an invariable element in the attainment of knowledge; religion makes its endowments immediately available, albeit there is the important factor of growth in grace, definite advancement in all phases of religious experience. Knowledge is an eternal quest; always are you learning, but never are you able to arrive at the full knowledge of absolute truth. In knowledge alone there can never be absolute certainty, only increasing probability of approximation; but the religious soul of spiritual illumination knows, and knows now. And yet this profound and positive certitude does not lead such a sound-minded religionist to take any less interest in the ups and downs of the progress of human wisdom, which is bound up on its material end with the developments of slow-moving science. (1120.1)
Time is an invariable element in the attainment of knowledge? I really think that if this was divinely inspired the word invariable would not have been chosen as time itself is known to be variable. While the intended interpretation is obviously that time is always a factor in learning, the use of language here actually gives an interpretation that is contrary to scientifically known fact. Perhaps I am being overly harsh here but surely a cosmic revelation that it takes time to learn stuff seems a little lightweight.
The truth never suffers honest examination. So let us examine what you are actually saying. You are basically saying the use of the word "invariable" in the phrase "an invariable element" is an inappropriate choice, for which you claim "the intended interpretation is obviously that time is always a factor in learning."
So, you are basically claiming that the statement, "time is always a factor in learning," with "always a factor" being the phrase in question and "always" being offered as a more appropriate word to use, compared to the statement "time is an invariable element in the attainment of knowledge," with "an invariable element" being the phrase you question and "invariable" being the word you would replace by "always."
As you yourself admit, the clear meaning of the usage of "invariable" in the sentence you question is that time is "always," meaning "occurring alike in every case," a "factor" or "element" in learning "without exception" and " every time" and "on all occasions."
First, if one looks up "always" in the Oxford Thesaurus, we find:
Concise Oxford Thesaurus wrote:always --> each time, at all times, all the time, without fail, consistently, unfailingly, invariably ...
We also find the following in the Oxford Dictionary:
Oxford Dictionary wrote:
invariable: Not subject to variation or alteration; unchangeable, unalterable; remaining ever the same, unchanging, constant; occurring alike in every case, unvarying.
invariably: 1. In an invariable manner; without variation, unchangingly, constantly; without exception, in every case alike.
always: 1. at every time, on every occasion, at all times. 2. every time, at all times, on all occasions.
It is obvious that the usage of always above means the same as the usage of invariable (at least according to the Oxford Thesaurus!) and either word conveys the same meaning that any common sense usage would imply.
I don't know if I would characterize your quibbling over whether "always" has a better semantic meaning than "invariable" as "being overly harsh," but I do find it a bit like quibbling over whether "reasonable" is "lightweight" compared to "sensible."
Oxford Dictionary wrote:quibble: 1. To argue in a purely verbal way; to evade the real point by a quibble. 2. to trifle or deal unfairly with, by quibbling.
You claim the use of "invariable," for which you substitute "always," which as we see from above mean the same thing, is a usage "of language [that] ... actually gives an interpretation that is contrary to scientifically known fact," because "as time itself is known to be variable." You logic is flawed; the fact that time is invariably/always an element/factor in learning doesn't contradict or say anthing about the relativity of time itself. So what if time is variable; the relativity of time refers to different reference frames, and unless you are reading this (learning) while you are traveling at the spead of light the fact that we may be living in different time zones doesn't make a bit of difference that it took you "time" to read it and "learn" what I just said. You have confused the two realities and created a non sequiter and straw man argument.
I will be entering into the path of achieving an advanced degree in biology (evolutionary developmental biology) and history of science in the philosophy department, and I can with confidence assume that "Time is an invariable element in the attainment" of the knowledge required to complete the degree
