Definitions are a matter of linguistics, they are not a matter of science.

yes it does.

lets not forget the CDC recently changed their definition of 'what is a vaccine?'

I don't know how people can still have faith in the CDC after this.

Yes, the definitions of words should never evolve as new scientific processes are discovered

Picking the easier battle, I see.

What is your response to this: Definitions are a matter of linguistics, they are not a matter of science.

I didn't say they were not. Look carefully, I said... "I'm not going to tell research scientists what is, or is not a vaccine" I did not say anything about linguistics, or what a word is, just that I'm not willing to care about it.

I'm not sure why you have a hardon for me, but I suggest just cutting your losses and moving on. Otherwise, I'll pass on trying to take on the entire scientific community on what a vaccine is. If you want to die on that hill go ahead bud. I'll keep checking the oxford dictionary, which by the way... looks like was updated to reflect the research scientists.

You are saying that only research scientists can define what a vaccine is, thus implying that the definition of vaccine is a scientific matter. And I am telling you that you are wrong. But I guess this is too much for your (very fragile) ego to take.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Mar 5 2022 12:05am

No, I didn't. Read carefully.

Maybe you didn't outright state that only scientists could define vaccine, but you certainly implied it. Very, very strongly. And don't give me none of how I should stop reading too much into what you wrote. You know as well as I do that your whole thesis was that only people in white lab coats can define what a vaccine is.

Please don't make me have to quote you. It's a waste of time for both of us.

Linguistics can and do respond to science, just as the definition of vaccine changed when recombinant vaccines were introduced.