I found one example from Wikipedia for avoiding ambiguity. Consider the following sentences: To my parents, Ayn Rand and God. To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God. the second comma before "and" in the second sentence should be the oxford/harvard comma~
I bet the most famous quotation about this word appeared in chapter 6 of <Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows>, when Harry said to Ginny, "Someone else might kill off Voldemort while she(Mrs Weasley)’s holding us here making vol-au-vents?"
Probably coined by the Nobelist Frank Wilczek in one of his articles published in 2006 on 《Physics World》, an internet version can be seen here. Certainly this follows electronics and its more recent derivatives like photonics and even phononics. Although the formation is a bit like cliche, this is really a cool idea to physicists at first sight~
I understand what you mean by "codes" and the meaning of "meaningless" and can agree with that. But I fear that logically saying "meaningless has meaning" or "meaningless is meaningful" would result in a similar example of Grelling-Nelson paradox, which happens to the pair--autological and heterological. Maybe there's no paradox, it's just that I haven't thought it through~
I can agree with your dislike about the word-formation. I think I'm not wordie enough to find what they are using in cognitive science now. However, I do think what Mr Shermer means by "meaningless" is about the absence of physical/mathematical meaning, or physically significant meaning, except using one's imagination~
You may ask whether "meaningless" is autological, or whether "meaningless" is meaningless, that's a good question, but that's linguistics~
Michael Shermer defined it in the December 2008 issue of Scientific American as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise". For more see here. An indeed interest idea, but I don't think it's brand new, even though I couldn't find any precursing phrases with similar meaning~
So seanahan, I think the most distinct difference I'm able to grasp from these two words is(I'm not a psychology major, anyway~) whether it is dominated by consciousness. retrospective falsification is an unconscious behavior and I came upon that in a documentary on (mildly debunking) extrasensory perception(ESP). A psychologist disagreeing with the possibility of someone predicting the future(especially some disastrous events) gave another explanation on the "predictors"' claims using this phrase. He said that the predictors may unconsciouslly rearranged their memory to better fit their claims, without self-awareness. There is a Chinese phrase that I can think of called "事�?�诸葛亮" has a similar connotation to retrospective falsification but with derogative tone. (I'm wondering if there are wordies for other languages like Chinese and there might be crosslinks between different languages which I don't think Wikipedia has even achieved, maybe I could make one~) And from my understanding of cognitive dissonance I think it should be a conscious behaviour, even though it is still very vague to know, let alone to prove, how is conscious and how is unconscious. Additionally, they may be different in emphases and effective situations or context(trivial).
Concepts are all degenerated at the very beginning(maybe the singularity before the Big Bang), uh hmm...
a recurring pattern that contains itself within itself(and can also contain even smaller replica ad infinitum), like a picture within a picture, a TV within a TV(as in some sitcom or music video), etc. More information can be found hither and thither