While on the topic of language, as recently brought up by Nick, I have spent some time reflecting on how it shapes our perception of the very concepts it attempts to describe. For one, consider the title of this blog. While we claim to be advocating evolved thought, are we really making any headway in doing so? Or, as the skeptics would likely prefer, are we just cloaking our feeble attempts with a hubristic title? If a change is in order, what should it entail? I invite comments from our readers on this particular linguistic dilemma.

On a more general note, improper use of language, whether intentional or not, can easily bias commonly held beliefs. This is, of course, an age old debating technique, especially in the context of controversial issues. Now I'm sure there are vast volumes of literature on the subject which I am yet to read but here is one amusing anecdote:

A few blocks from my apartment in Cambridge is the headquarters of a small high-tech firm named 'Predictive Networks'. At first glance, one would falsely assume, as I did, that they develop technology that responds retroactively to some phenomenon. In academic circles, the concept of a predictive network or the 'predictor' in a neural network has a well-defined meaning.

However, a cursory look at the website of the company reveals that they, in fact, make devices that snoop on people's TV watching habits! One can only hazard a guess as to what they proceed to use this information for.

Furthermore, and sadly, a quick web search of the phrase 'predictive network' yields an interminable slew of links to the business-related activities of this firm and its various cronies in the cable TV industry. One has to go to the third page of results to find something that even remotely approaches what a predictive network actually is. For the more curious reader, a good introductory reference on the subject can be found here:

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html

In any case, enjoy your respective evenings.