A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle.

When people disagree about what words rightly mean, we must have some method of deciding who is correct, if we are to salvage the possibility of any analytic knowledge at all; for if, for example, one person in a discourse insists that to be a bachelor only means to live a carefree life of alcohol, sex, and music (ala the Greek god Bacchus from whose name the term is derived), with no implications on marital status, while another person insists that to be a bachelor only means to be a human male of marriageable age who is nevertheless not married, with no implications on lifestyle besides that, then they will find no agreement on whether or not it is analytically, a priori, necessarily true that all bachelors are unmarried.

Such a conflict could be resolved in a creative and cooperative way by the use of qualifying terms to specify which sense of the word is meant: for example, the aforementioned disagreement might be resolved by the creation of the terms "lifestyle-bachelor" and "marriage-bachelor" to differentiate the two senses of the word "bachelor" in use. Or the same word can have multiple meanings, so long as the uses of the word in those multiple meanings do not conflict in context. (Initially, all words mean anything, and in doing so effectively mean nothing; it is the division of the world into those things the word means and those it doesn't that constitutes the assignment of meaning to it.)

But if no such cooperative resolution is to be found, and an answer must be found as to which party to the conflict actually has the correct definition of the word in question, I propose that that answer be found by looking back through the history of the word's usage until the most recent uncontested usage can be found: the most recent definition of the word that was accepted by the entire linguistic community. That is then to be held as the correct definition of the word, the analytic a posteriori fact of its meaning, in much the same way that observations common to the experience of all observers constitute the synthetic a posteriori facts of the concrete world.

'There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’

‘Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice ‘what that means?’

‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’

‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’

‘Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

It depends on if you are looking to describe how you choose to use a word, or if you are trying to define a new concept. For the former, a style of saying " this is how I intend to use 'x'" followed by some examples in context may be sufficient. You may explain what you intend to happen when you say the word. For the latter, the way you provide a definition of the concept will depend on what you plan to do with that concept in your disourse.

If I am trying to define a class of star for an astronomical model, I would probably go about listing the properties that are shared by stars I would like to include in that group.

If I am interested in talking about the Morning Star, I may focus on the phenomenon of the brightest object in the sky during early morning hours. However, if I want to talk about the atmosphere of Venus (a.k.a. the Morning Star) I may focus on other aspects of the planetary object other than the phenomenon of being seen pre-dawn.

On another angle, if I were giving a discussion on GDP of a nation, I may focus on how the GDP number gets calculated, as opposed to trying to explain some essence or substance of the concept.

But if no such cooperative resolution is to be found, and an answer must be found as to which party to the conflict actually has the correct definition of the word in question, I propose that that answer be found by looking back through the history of the word's usage until the most recent uncontested usage can be found: the most recent definition of the word that was accepted by the entire linguistic community. That is then to be held as the correct definition of the word, the analytic a posteriori fact of its meaning, in much the same way that observations common to the experience of all observers constitute the synthetic a posteriori facts of the concrete world. — Pfhorrest

I will contest every single definition you come up with for any given word as the universal and objective definition for that word. You may consider me incorrigible in that way. But I will assert that a word always gets its meaning from context.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

-- written by some Logician somewhere

But I will assert that a word always gets its meaning from context. — Adam's Off Ox

I didn't say anything about them being context-independent. The empirical observations that constitute synthetic a posteriori facts are context-dependent too: a red thing is only red in a given lighting, and may be a different color in different lighting. But it's the unanimous agreement that it appears a particular way under particular lighting that constitutes the objectivity of its color.

Likewise, words can vary based on context. I said in the very same post you responded to, "the same word can have multiple meanings, so long as the uses of the word in those multiple meanings do not conflict in context". But if multiple parties disagree about what a given word means in a given context, then you settle that by looking back to see who kept with the most recent linguistic community agreement on that, vs who broke with that agreement.

Likewise, words can vary based on context. I said in the very same post you responded to, "the same word can have multiple meanings, so long as the uses of the word in those multiple meanings do not conflict in context". But if multiple parties disagree about what a given word means in a given context, then you settle that by looking back to see who kept with the most recent linguistic community agreement on that, vs who broke with that agreement. — Pfhorrest

So you are saying words have objective meanings, in a given context, and those meanings are determined democratically or by consensus? And if two people disagree on the meaning of a word in a given context, they should appeal to some broader community to decide the difference? (sounds like a moral appeal)

Who determines which broader community arbitrates the decision? Within the English speaking community, there are many linguistic traditions and schools of thought. When two schools have different opinions, what objective authority do we appeal to solve further disagreements about linguistic community?

I agree you have suggested one solution that appeals to objectivity. I'm just not sure you have arrived at the only or even best solution, or that it should be determined by an objective appeal.

I'll tell you what though, I'll agree with you to always appeal to an authority when we disagree on a word as long as you agree to let me choose the authoritative source to settle the dispute.

Obsessing about definitions seems largely in aid of fixing meaning. If you assume, or have a theory, that meaning is fixable, then definitions will be your tool of first choice, and probably useful early on.

But if you assume that meanings are a myth or social construct that we maintain as best we can in the absence of any consensus as to its nature, mythical or otherwise, then definitions are probably only a specially assertive kind of glossing, and a lesser priority. Each word choice will be more a strategic punt than a clearly motivated decision, and glossing of some sort or other will serve, on a more occasional but ongoing basis (than if we thought meaning fixable), as Public Relations for the strategies, which we aim to share.

I suspect one should see the second, more fluid point of view just as much in cases of triangles etc. Definitions in such cases clearly succeed in oiling the pragmatic wheels of a language (e.g. math) game, but perhaps not necessarily by means of fixing the reference of terms.

It seems there are many ways to discern a good definition but is there a best way? And what role does the subject of definition play on how it ought to be defined? — Benj96

Yes. The subject of definition definitely determines how it can best be defined. In philosophical discussions you are most often defining abstract concepts that may have personal subjective connotations. In that case, simply referring to a standardized dictionary entry will miss the mark. Here's a webpage with a list of suggestions for presenting ideas. :smile:

Define your terms : Expertise has no value to an audience that doesn’t understand
https://www.presentation-guru.com/the-best-way-to-explain-complex-concepts-part-1/

Benj96
154
I want to define something. I want to do it as accurately as possible. That is to say I want to define something truthfully - as it really is.
What criteria do I use?
a). Unanimity - The best definition is that which most people believe to be true. As in the case of "facts" and the existence if "monetary value"
b). Stability - The best definition is that which appears to be most consistent in its parameters through time. As in the case of "laws and constants of physics."
c). Equity - the best definition of something is the qualitative/ quantitative average/mean of the sum total of all definitions of said thing. - as in the case of probability and normal distributions.
d). Explanatory capacity - the best definition is that which provides the highest level of understanding and information regarding the thing being defined.
e). Demonstration - the best definition of something is that which is most experiential in nature and self- referencing: ie the act of defining is the definition ie. In the case of "Word" or "sdrawkcab" or "re-arragned lettesr".


It seems there are many ways to discern a good definition but is there a best way? And what role does the subject of definition play on how it ought to be defined? — Benj96

If there is ambiguity in a word's meaning...the individual using it ought to explain how the word is being used.

I am an agnostic (I explain that each time I argue)...and in almost every discussion with an atheist, eventually the comment, "How do you define GOD?" arises.

I often respond with a question of my own, that I acknowledge may sound smarmy, but is not intended that way--namely, "How do you define 'define.'"

That seems to be what you are doing here...or attempting to do.

If there is ambiguity...explain what you mean rather than use a word...like that word "believe" in a) above.

I am not saying to appeal to authorities. This is the mistake that so-called "descriptivists" always make: assuming there cannot be objectivity without authority.

Words are defined by use. If there never been any agreed-upon usage, then the word is not well-defined. Whenever a linguistic community (a bunch of people who claim to all speak the same language) agree that a word means something, that creates the definition of a previously undefined word. If later on people in the same linguistic community (who claim to be speaking the same language) find themselves disagreeing about the meaning, thinking each other are using the word wrongly, then they need to look back over their history to see who broke with the agreed-upon usage, in order to tell which of them is actually using it wrongly.

Who thinks what is right or wrong (authority) or how many think what is right or wrong (popularity) both have no bearing on the question. The history of usage is independent of both of those. Self-described "descriptivists" seem so spooked by the so-called "prescriptivists" who unjustifiably invoke arbitrary authorities that they instead turn to popularity ("if enough people do it, it's not a mistake"). I'm opposed to both of those errors.

I think where we differ in opinion is that you seem to believe at least some of the bullets below.

• Words have meanings
• A definition is a word's meaning
• A word can be used wrongly
• A speaker and listener must agree on meaning for the speaker to make an effective language move
• If two people think each other are using a word wrongly, one of them must be right and the issue must be reconciled

Since I reject all of the above, if you agree with any one of them, we will find ourselves in disagreement.

Wow okay, that's not even "descriptivism" as I've ever seen it, and I have no idea how you can manage to communicate on a first-order level much less communicate about communication while rejecting all of those things.

BTW, on that last note:

If two people think each other are using a word wrongly, one of them must be right and the issue must be reconciled — Adam's Off Ox

I don't think one of them must be right. It's possibly they're both wrong. But at least one of them must be wrong, if they think they're speaking the same language.

A definition is an accurate description of something in an indivisible way.
It dose not necessarily confer understanding, as many things are simply beyond understanding.

I don't think one of them must be right. It's possibly they're both wrong. But at least one of them must be wrong, if they think they're speaking the same language. — Pfhorrest

I like your version better than mine. If I were to re-write the bullets, I would include your version instead. (Though I would still find myself not going along with the bullet.)

↪Adam's Off Ox Wow okay, that's not even "descriptivism" as I've ever seen it, and I have no idea how you can manage to communicate on a first-order level much less communicate about communication while rejecting all of those things. — Pfhorrest

What you say here identify some very important aspects (concerns) about what I am saying, or how I say it. First, I would not describe my approach as descriptivism. I would agree with you that it does not fit under that label. Descriptivism still assumes that words have some kind of meaning, but falls back on an idea that definitions or dictionary definitions can only describe the meanings of words in the context of what they mean to a body of language users. The concept of language is still treated as an existing thing, and descriptivists want to capture the meanings of words as they show up in language use.

I take an alternative approach. Words get used to do something. What that something is only works within the language game in which it occurs. (The effectiveness of using a word as a behavior is relevant only within the context the behavior is observed.) I don't view there to be one overarching context for English, for example, so no single definition or sense of a word captures its use under one umbrella of an English context. Since the way words get used show up in an unlimited number of situations, and some unique situations allow for unique uses of pre-established words (not taken as definitions), a dictionary definition that attempts to capture a singular objective sense of a word, or even attempts to enumerate a finite set of valid senses of a word, cannot describe all cromulent senses for a word. Nor can any English dictionary capture all cromulent words. So descriptivism gets rejected in that it appeals to some objectively ascertainable sense or set of senses for any given word.

As for first-order communication, I can interact with people who assume a first-order framework. I can play by their rules to accomplish speech acts that get at desired outcomes. That doesn't mean that I believe first-order rules are true, or knowable with a sense of certainty. Rather that I can interact with some others and their sense of true-ness. I am not autistic when it comes to the sensibilities of a first-order logician or mathematician. I just happen to believe I have a wider set of tools available to analyze language behaviors besides what are found in the logician's toolbox.

I am working on a project that is trying to look into what concepts or awareness is required to even understand first-order principles. To that degree first-order gets treated as a poor name as it would imply some primitiveness to laws of thought, while I believe there are concepts that come prior to even first-order. I have in the past used terms like partial-order, zeroeth-order, or negative-order, but generally find those names equally distasteful as they still imply some hierarchy of concepts.

The project that explores prior to first-order concepts is slow moving. It's hard to access writing on those concepts. It's hard to make explicit what those concepts are in a way that is appealing to someone who already intuits first-order principles. It's even harder to make explicit what those concepts represent to someone who has little or no understanding of logic. I haven't accomplished much in this way so far.

At this point, I have to go several days without access to internet. I won't be able to reply to any further responses to my comments. I apologize if it seems like I'm making some statement and "dropping the mike." That is not my intention. This has been an interesting discussion. I hope we can pick up and continue discussion on these themes at some future time.

A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle. — fishfry

I couldn't have said it better myself. Is it always achievable though?

Yes.

Depends on the thing obviously. Life and reality is dynamic. Defining a thing is easy. Placating the stubborn is not. Nor is it terribly relevant. Unless it happens to be your job. It is mine, you know. :grin:

A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle.
— fishfry
I couldn't have said it better myself. Is it always achievable though? — Wheatley

You're agreeing with me? Cool! Even if it's in a different thread!

You're agreeing with me? Cool! Even if it's in a different thread! — fishfry

I agree with you on math, disagree on politics.