Correct Use of The Word Energy

[Heisenberg]

I see a lot of talk about spiritual energy and what not. I understand energy is sometimes used as a sort of slang to describe the essence of a person, but too often it is thrown around in a scientific context.

Energy is a science word that means only one thing, the ability to do work. A measurable work potential. Energy can be used, it can be stored, but it can not be imprinted onto a house, or felt from negative thoughts. It is not some sort of ghostly cloud that moves around and does things. If ever you hear the word energy being used, reaplace it with the phrase "ability to do work" and see if it still makes sense. If not, then it's probably a meaningless statement.

Correct use:
These batteries have no energy.
These batteries have no ability to do work.

Incorrect use:
This old house is giving off a lot of negative energy.
This old house is giving off a lot of negative ability to do work.

When someone is trying to explain a scientific concept, and misuses such a basic scientific word as energy, that person probably doesn't know what they are talking about. Keep that in mind the next time you watch ghost hunters.

 

[mindphuk]

In the psuedoscientific realm of New Age beliefs, energy = Juju.

 

[mistaphuck]

I dub this: "Heisenberg's Principal"

 

[Nice Ol Bud]

Sarah has no energy to give me a good time.
Sarah has no ability to do work to give me a good time.
Ahhh!
Now its all clear to me,
Great post!
Rep!

 

[guy incognito]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that at a specific curvature of space, knowledge can be transferred into energy, or...and this is key now...matter.

 

[Heisenberg]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that at a specific curvature of space, knowledge can be transferred into energy, or...and this is key now...matter.

Yea but the more you xfer it into energy, the less you will understand why it matters.

 

[guy incognito]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?!

 

[researchkitty]

Bump, you two never finished (guy and Heis!)!!

 

[GreenGurl]

If you are fixated upon the purport that "energy is a science word..." your issue is simply one of semantics. Language is a man made creation, all non-onomatopoeic words are entirely arbitrary, and it is the very relative context ("meaning") that hinges it all (so long as you believe "context" and "meaning" to have synonymous definitions).

Hows that for a slippery slope?

If you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, here are a few links to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

edit: I also am annoyed by people who "pretend" to be scientific, when they are obviously not.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

i think these people think there is a force of energy...controlling energy? lol, i have no idea. im reading a book called "the god delusion" by richard dawkson at the moment that said something about this very same thing. i remember it saying that if people continue to use the word "god" other than the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority that can change or tamper with anything it pleases... then the world "god" will lose all relevance. if you say that "god" is energy, then you would be able to find god in a lump of coal...lol. it is a very good book if you havent read it already. sweet thread Heis.

 

[Heisenberg]

This is one of the first threads I started, and subsequent discussions of when it's okay to use the word energy as slang or a place-holder term took place in other threads. It is sometimes useful to use 'energy' as a descriptive term when we lack a better word, but we must be careful to assign no real meaning to those uses. When people hear a medium say they can sense the energy of their dead father, they assume the word is being used in some sort of meaningful way.

Energy, by definition, must be precisely measurable, so it doesn't make much sense to re-purpose this word to describe something vague. When someone says they can sense spiritual energy, they are really saying "I can sense something that I can't really describe or explain". When someone says god is energy, they are in essence saying "god is something I can't really define or explain". When someone says this, they really aren't saying much at all.

 

[tyler.durden]

i think these people think there is a force of energy...controlling energy? lol, i have no idea. im reading a book called "the god delusion" by richard dawkson at the moment that said something about this very same thing. i remember it saying that if people continue to use the word "god" other than the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority that can change or tamper with anything it pleases... then the world "god" will lose all relevance. if you say that "god" is energy, then you would be able to find god in a lump of coal...lol. it is a very good book if you havent read it already. sweet thread Heis.

I love that book, it's currently my favorite. Dawkins is so eloquent, and write with such style and dry humor...

 

[PbHash]

Greengurl- the only reason it is a semantics problem is because dumb ass pseudoscientists use the word out of context. As a physicist what energy is and they will say E=mc^2 nothing to do with anything else.

 

[GreenGurl]

Greengurl- the only reason it is a semantics problem is because dumb ass pseudoscientists use the word out of context. As a physicist what energy is and they will say E=mc^2 nothing to do with anything else.

I would agree with you that it's the misrepresentation of "energy" by the pseudo-scientists that is causing the irritation for Heisenberg. However, it's a stretch for him to expect the entire world to ever use language in any exact fashion all the time. Take a look a the definition of energy as described by Merriam Webster. The very first instance is NARRATIVE, not SCIENTIFIC. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/energy Really, I'm just saying if Heisenberg wants to get frustrated with something that's totally unenforceable, it's his issue, and one that stems from the expectation that his scientific view (lens) should be universal (regardless of it's correctness).

I'll say it again, I also am annoyed by people who use empiricism to exalt themselves without any real study of what they are claiming to understand. Bunch of adult ankle-biters! Loving this thread Heisen!

edit: I wouldn't say the pseudo-scientists use the word "out of context" because they are using the word (perhaps scientifically incorrectly) in their own context, just not that of natural science (did you know there were other kinds?).

 

[mindphuk]

I disagree that is just a matter of semantics. Generally, I believe that people that speak of energy 'beings' or spiritual energy they are in fact relying on the average person understanding this to mean actual energy in the scientific sense. Since most people have only a vague understand of science, it gets a pass. Anyone that uses a common word in a new way has the obligation to define it properly. If you don't believe it is taken literally in the scientific sense, why then do ghost hunters attempt to measure these things as if we are talking about energy in the scientific sense? It is this myriad of confusing doubletalk that let's people get away with such sloppy wording. Sloppy is being generous, at most it is dishonest.

Of course I don't think Heis is really concerned with those out there but the actual posters here. As I said, if someone begins to use a word such as energy, especially when the implication we are talking about actual, measurable, energy, it is incumbent on them to proved the appropriate definition and parties agree to the definition. This is the basis for all rational discussions otherwise you begin talking past each other in an equivocation battle.

 

[Heisenberg]

I don't find it particularly frustrating, but I do think people should be careful not to conflate the two meanings when trying to make sense of the world. My goal is not to force people to constrain their use of the word, but for them to be cautious when accepting the word. Many people do not make a distinction.

 

[cannabineer]

GreenGurl, are you positing that there is unnatural science? cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

I don't find it particularly frustrating, but I do think people should be careful not to conflate the two meanings when trying to make sense of the world. My goal is not to force people to constrain their use of the word, but for them to be cautious when excepting the word. Most people do not make a distinction.

...my take on it is that the world outside is not a lab - so coats off. All kinds of stuff had to be smeared to get us where we are. Terms mean nothing toward understanding, imo. To a degree of course...that should be obvious. I think it takes a few stabs in the dark to produce other kinds of offspring, too

 

[cannabineer]

...my take on it is that the world outside is not a lab - so coats off. All kinds of stuff had to be smeared to get us where we are. Terms mean nothing toward understanding, imo. To a degree of course...that should be obvious. I think it takes a few stabs in the dark to produce other kinds of offspring, too

Thomas Jefferson LIVED that last sentence. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

...my take on it is that the world outside is not a lab - so coats off. All kinds of stuff had to be smeared to get us where we are. Terms mean nothing toward understanding, imo. To a degree of course...that should be obvious. I think it takes a few stabs in the dark to produce other kinds of offspring, too

The first step of critical thinking is learning to recognize and avoid ambiguity. Accuracy and clarity help us to avoid confusion. The world outside is the very thing we are trying to understand, so as long as we are being investigatory or explanatory, I say keep the coats on. As for the rest of the time, I simply say be careful.