Banned from Skeptiko until 15 Feb

I explained that here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/do...ost-137409

Oh, and tim is right that you should have used "effect" there. The difference is that "affect" is a verb (except where it's being used to describe an emotional state, in which case it is also a noun, as in "this patient's affect is blunted"), and "effect" is a noun (except where "effect(s)" is being used as a synonym for "cause(s)", in which case it is also a verb, as in "the factory machine effects another product").

You were using "affect" as a noun there.

Unfortunately, tim got a little confused himself, and also used "affect" as a noun!


I think what you meant to say here, tim, is "Yes, gravity 'affects' an object, and the effect is the result (falling)".

Click the link in post 70.

[Laird]

Click the link in post 70.

I did. It supports my view. "Affect" is a verb, but you used it as a noun.

[Laird]

Here's a way to look at it, Steve001. You wrote:

Why is there no affect?

Now, we can ask which sort of words fit grammatically, and could grammatically replace, "affect" in that sentence.

For example, we could replace that word to come up with grammatical sentences such as:

"Why is there no tree?", or
"Why is there no colour?", or
"Why is there no sun?"

"Tree", "colour", and "sun" are nouns. They fit.

OK. Now, how about verbs? Let's pick some at semi-random and see whether they fit:

"Why is there no think?", or
"Why is there no feel?", or
"Why is there no pretend?"

They don't quite fit, do they? They're grammatically awkward.

Clearly, the right fit for your sentence is a noun, not a verb. And, as your link demonstrates, the noun form of effect/affect is "effect". Which is what you should have used.

Fair enough?

Are people seriously arguing about the definitions of affect and effect?

[Laird]

Some of us have way too much time on our hands, huh, Mediochre?

Are people seriously arguing about the definitions of affect and effect?

It's Christmas - we're allowed to!

It's Christmas - we're allowed to!

it’s the Yuletide yffect.

Here's a way to look at it, Steve001. You wrote:




Now, we can ask which sort of words fit grammatically, and could grammatically replace, "affect" in that sentence.

For example, we could replace that word to come up with grammatical sentences such as:

"Why is there no tree?", or
"Why is there no colour?", or
"Why is there no sun?"

"Tree", "colour", and "sun" are nouns. They fit.

OK. Now, how about verbs? Let's pick some at semi-random and see whether they fit:

"Why is there no think?", or
"Why is there no feel?", or
"Why is there no pretend?"

They don't quite fit, do they? They're grammatically awkward.

Clearly, the right fit for your sentence is a noun, not a verb. And, as your link demonstrates, the noun form of effect/affect is "effect". Which is what you should have used.

Fair enough?

Here's the way to look at it an example from the grammar link. Btw, it's a happy coincidence that the forth coming example used gravity.
 

 Examples of Affect

Gravity affects everything in the universe, but the amount of gravity affecting an object depends on two things: the masses of the objects being attracted and the distance between the objects.

To keep you happy I'll ask once more. What effect does gravity have on the swing of a pendulum?

Are people seriously arguing about the definitions of affect and effect?

I didn't start it. And as typical folks whom assert I did not use the word correctly took no time to read the entire grammar link. This type of "I'm right, you'er not" position is likely one of the reasons skeptical interaction has dropped of significantly on this forum.

[Laird]

Here's the way to look at it

OK... so, you refuse to accept that you erroneously used "affect" as a noun instead of a verb. Oh well. There's no point continuing, given how minor the issue is.

And as typical folks whom assert

Just for the record, you frequently (as in the above quote) also misuse "whom". It should be "who" in that quote, because it represents a subject, not an object. (Yes, it bugs me. No, I won't harp on about it beyond this note).

To keep you happy I'll ask once more. What effect does gravity have on the swing of a pendulum?

Is this a genuine physics question or a rhetorical grammatical one?

[Laird]

Assuming a genuine physics question, the answer is:

Gravity is that which maintains the swing of the pendulum, by endlessly converting potential energy into kinetic energy and then back again, as the pendulum swings (respectively) towards its midpoint, and then away from it.