they simply indicate how they are most often used.
Sometimes they even get that wrong! — Frank Apisa
Andrew4Handel
1.4k
I think that not defining something accurately means you are not likely to be explaining or exploring the right thing.
This is particularly relevant in psychology and philosophy of mind but also in any field with where there is not an external object to hang a definition onto including social theory and politics. — Andrew4Handel
Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused: — jgill
How so? And keeping in mind that Achilleus's heel itself as a heel worked just fine, no complaints. — tim wood
Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. So I think it's worth making the following points:
1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."
2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."
3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.
For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.
I wish this didn't have to be explicitly stated. — Xtrix
180 Proof
923
↪Frank Apisa If you can, define "descriptor" - particularly how it differs from "definition" - without being, as you say, "misleading". — 180 Proof
180 Proof
924
↪Frank Apisa :roll: So you can't DEFINE "descriptor" in terms of how it DIFFERS from how "definition" is DEFINED (either commonly or technically) ... ok. No wonder, then, you don't understand that claiming you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED' is incoherent, or an empty claim. — 180 Proof
Time for an appropriate joke:
The wife of noted lexicographer Noah Webster unexpectedly walks into the family parlor and discovers Noah passionately kissing the downstairs maid.
"I am surprised," she declares.
"No, my dear," responds Webster, "you are astonished. It is I who am surprised."
Okay, break over. Back to work. — Frank Apisa
Stop projecting ... :lol:Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
925
Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else.
— Frank Apisa
Stop projecting ... :lol: — 180 Proof
So how is starting with preliminary definitions a weakness? — tim wood
If you do survey of topics with techinical definitions that differ greatly from their common lexical definitions I feel they'll be about highly abstract matters - far removed from what people are concerned about in their day to day lives. — TheMadFool
But it is my experience that in way too many Internet philosophical discussions, the request to "define X" is more a challenge intended to divert. Someone is attempting to move away from an argument that has been successful made. — Frank Apisa
All too often ego takes control...and people will do everything possible NOT to concede a valid argument. — Frank Apisa
Our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marketing, in the lifetimes of many generation; these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs of an afternoon-the most favoured alternative method.
What does "dictionary" mean?Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. — Xtrix
Well, if bullshit surrounded the kale, I wouldn't want to eat it, for sure, even if you cleaned it. The smell... :vomit:I have a friend who refuses to eat kale because of the bullshit surrounding the supposed superfood. I have explained to him that just as the bullshit is not a reason to eat kale, it is not a reason not to eat kale. It's irrelevant to the decision to eat kale.
Pretty much the same goes for definitions. — Banno
My point in raising this issue is simply not appealing to common usage when discussing science or philosophy, or simply engaging in a fruitless discussion on "let's define x," without any knowledge of the history of the field in question, its problems, its terms, its theoretical basis, etc. I see a lot of that here. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.