![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rule of Thumb
Feb. 14th, 2011 02:05 pmNelson occasionally makes me chew my own flesh. When I question exactly how a given multilevel-marketed health product purges toxins (dioxin? lead? excess levels of sugar? what exactly? how?), or when I raise my eyebrows at how it was "never inhabited by Aboriginals but was rather a place of migration for healing" or "they were extinct" (making it easier to mine silver without paying royalties to the Snixt).
And when I use the phrase "rule of thumb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
So it's clear - the term "rule of thumb" probably comes from carpentry or any trade with rough measures (you can "rule" i.e. "measure" an inch with your thumb). It does not come from English or American law regarding wife-beating - as far as anyone can tell, there is no such law. Also: other European languages that use the inch but do not have ties to British common law use the same phrase.
And understandable misunderstanding. But here's the catch: when someone tells me that I shouldn't use the phrase "rule of thumb" because it, hundreds of years ago, referred to wife-beating, they often *do not* want to hear that this assertion is in error. I don't know how to approach this. I try to do it tactfully. And I'm a pretty tactful person at the more impolite of times. But people get defensive, offended.
How do I explain this? How do I encourage sound historical methodology?
Or do I go on the offensive? Do I offer a wager, say $20 and giving them one week or one month to find the statute?
Do I take up the trickster's stance and say something more outrageous, like how the word "street" actually stems from "razed village?"
Gah! Being progressive doesn't mean simply accepting whatever vaguely-progressive assertion first reached your eyes or ears.
And when I use the phrase "rule of thumb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
So it's clear - the term "rule of thumb" probably comes from carpentry or any trade with rough measures (you can "rule" i.e. "measure" an inch with your thumb). It does not come from English or American law regarding wife-beating - as far as anyone can tell, there is no such law. Also: other European languages that use the inch but do not have ties to British common law use the same phrase.
And understandable misunderstanding. But here's the catch: when someone tells me that I shouldn't use the phrase "rule of thumb" because it, hundreds of years ago, referred to wife-beating, they often *do not* want to hear that this assertion is in error. I don't know how to approach this. I try to do it tactfully. And I'm a pretty tactful person at the more impolite of times. But people get defensive, offended.
How do I explain this? How do I encourage sound historical methodology?
Or do I go on the offensive? Do I offer a wager, say $20 and giving them one week or one month to find the statute?
Do I take up the trickster's stance and say something more outrageous, like how the word "street" actually stems from "razed village?"
Gah! Being progressive doesn't mean simply accepting whatever vaguely-progressive assertion first reached your eyes or ears.