Skip to main content

See here ("some" means any nonzero number, so "some" would actually be a way to describe both "scientists" and "economists", but "some" is only applied to "economists" for some reason):

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-...mics-nobel-good.html

But such a high rate, scientists and some economists say, vastly downplays the risk to future generations.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi, Andrew,

See here ("some" means any nonzero number, so "some" would actually be a way to describe both "scientists" and "economists", but "some" is only applied to "economists" for some reason):

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-...mics-nobel-good.html

But such a high rate, scientists and some economists say, vastly downplays the risk to future generations.

I think "some" is used to refer to those economists that, unlike the ones who discount damages as mentioned in this sentence, still consider the risk to be high: Economists using this classic approach commonly discount future damages by four or five percent, compounded annually.

There is at least one more place where the author refers to scientists in general and to most, albeit not all economists: If climate scientists have long raised red flags about Nordhaus' work, criticism among economists -– with a few exceptions, such as the late Martin Weitzman of Harvard, another environmental economist -– has been more recent.

There's no way that "scientists" means "100% of scientists in the world"; it therefore means "some".

No. "Scientists" means "scientists in general."

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

So "some" applies to both "scientists" and "economists", correct?

So why then is "some" only deployed for "economists"?

As written, "some" only refers to "economists": scientists in general, but only some economists, are of the opinion that claiming there is a 4 or 5% reduction  in damages downplays the risk to future generations. I'm not sure the sentence "Such a high rate downplays the risk" is accurate. If I understand it correctly, I think the sentence should express this concept: "Claiming there is such a high reduction in damages downplays the risk to future generations."

Last edited by Gustavo, Co-Moderator

Isn't the word "some" a weird and ultra-vague word?

See here:

https://blog.powerscore.com/ls...ew-several-and-many/

One classic example of word misinterpretation occurs with some. As we discuss in our LSAT Courses and in our Logical Reasoning Bible, some means at least one, possibly all. While most people understand the at least one part, it is the possibly all portion that surprises them. For example, if you tell your roommate that some of your friends are coming over to watch the game, most of us assume that means not all of your friends are coming. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you have said that all of your friends were coming. But logically speaking, some can include all. Therefore, in the LSAT world, it may be that all of your friends are coming over. The nice thing about some is that the definition is clear: always at least one, but maybe all. Other terms, such as few, several, and many are more relative. Let’s examine each.

Let me tell you what I've chosen to do; let me know if you think this is OK or if I should make an adjustment.

The piece is saying that climate scientists (including some leading ones) have always categorically criticized Nordhaus's work.

And the piece is saying that economists (including some leading ones) categorically criticize Nordhaus's work but that:

(1) this criticism from the economists started more recently

(2) it's not as general as the criticism from the climate scientists; there's more of a split in the economics community, whereas the climate scientists are much more unified

But I just want to paraphrase all of the above complexity as follows:

Scientists and economists have criticized Nordhaus’s work in a “categorical” manner

Is that OK for me to do? I often struggle with what the "rules" are regarding paraphrasing; I'm not capturing all of the complexity, but I don't think that that complexity is important for the purposes of this paraphrase...for example, I go on to quote Stiglitz and Mann, so it's therefore obvious that "leading" figures are included among the critics.

The intended meaning was evidently the below, right?

there's more of a split in the economics community, whereas the climate scientists are much more unified

Yes.

But I just want to paraphrase all of the above complexity as follows:

Scientists and economists have criticized Nordhaus’s work in a “categorical” manner

Is that OK for me to do?

Yes. That seems OK to me. "Scientists and economists" does not necessarily mean "all scientists and economists."  Rather than "some," I'd say that it is the zero article that can encompass "all."

I am interested in how you interpret it if I say "climate scientists criticize X"; what can we deduce about what the means? Does that mean like >50% of them or...? Does it mean like "virtually all of them"? What can we deduce?

As I said above, I interpret "climate scientists" as "virtually all climate scientists" or "climate scientists in general."

Last edited by Gustavo, Co-Moderator

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×