Too much focus on definitions?

[T'ai Chi]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. T'ai Chi has made a couple of statements that seem pretty reasonable to me:

Shhhssshhh, some don't like to hear such things.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think that there are people out there that believe they have rational reasons for believing.

Do you have any rational reasons for believing?

Yes, I am asking you.

 

[Tricky]

I said the definitions exist, after Paul said they didn't exist. That doesn't mean I "accept" them.

From an earlier exchange

Really, I have no idea what god means.

What can I say. You've read the definitions in the dictionary. You not being able to understand them, or not liking them, is not my concern.

From this it would seem reasonable to assume that you have read and understood the dictionary definitions and that they are to your liking. If they are not, then it seems wrong for you to take Paul to task when they are not to your liking either.​

 

[T'ai Chi]

From this it would seem reasonable to assume that you have read and understood the dictionary definitions and that they are to your liking. If they are not, then it seems wrong for you to take Paul to task when they are not to your liking either

Then you've assumed wrong. What can I say.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do you have any rational reasons for believing?

Yes, I am asking you.

Believing what?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I said the definitions exist, after Paul said they didn't exist. That doesn't mean I "accept" them.

Aaaaaarrrggh! I didn't say there were no definitions of god. I said there were no coherent definitions.

It seems to come down to how authority-oriented one is. The word outside in the first statement above suggests recognition that it isn't as important to ask what the meaning of a word is as to ask where the meaning is. The dictionary is not a repository of meaning; merely a guide to accepted usage. Like words themselves, dictionaries were made to follow; not to lead -- and failure to recognize this is quite widespread, even within skeptic communities such as this one.

I agree that the dictionary is no place from which to take the definition of god.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Then you've assumed wrong. What can I say.

You can say "I'm sorry for being a hypocrite and criticizing others for the same exact things that I do myself."

 

[T'ai Chi]

You can say "I'm sorry for being a hypocrite and criticizing others for the same exact things that I do myself."

No, I'll stick with saying you've assumed wrong. Thanks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I agree that the dictionary is no place from which to take the definition of god.

Dictionaries are the place for definitions.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I said the definitions exist, after Paul said they didn't exist. That doesn't mean I "accept" them.
...
Dictionaries are the place for definitions.

As I predicted, the dictionary definitions of god have us completely bollocksed up.



~~ Paul

 

[chipmunk stew]

Dictionaries are the place for definitions.

Actually, most dictionaries just catalog, in the most terse way possible, the most common usages of words. They're often useless for technical terms (because they reflect common usage rather than conserve technical usage) and also for highly subjective terms such as "god" (because they try to be as concise as possible, which often means sacrificing shades of meaning for broad generalities.)

 

[Tricky]

Dictionaries are the place for definitions.

But you don't accept dictionary definitions on everything, so either they are not the place for definitions, or you were prevaricating.

 

[chipmunk stew]

When dictionaries are useless

This discussion reminds me:

Remember that scene from Office Space, where the three guys are trying to figure out what to do with the massive amount of money they accidentally stole, and they decided they should launder it, but none of them knows anything about money-laundering, so they look it up in the dictionary? Great scene.

 

[CFLarsen]

Believing what?

You are clearly not interested in participating in anything worthwhile here.

Whatamaroon....

 

[chipmunk stew]

For an interesting case study on why definitions matter (or, more accurately, why unclear definitions make clear communication impossible) please refer to this thread (the last three pages or so) in which a self-described idealist (or ocassionally "~materialist") uses various terms, sometimes interchangeably, some invented, to create a dilemma in which we all must choose between materialism and "~materialism", but he never actually states or describes what he means by these words.

 

[hammegk]

Shall I call a waaambulance for you?

That darn Wittgenstein, huh? Yet language offers the best method of communication we are certain exists.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Shall I call a waaambulance for you?

That darn Wittgenstein, huh? Yet language offers the best method of communication we are certain exists.

Not only the best, but the only one, and its not only for communication, it also involves what we can think, and how we can think.

 

[Dymanic]

Dictionaries are the place for definitions.

But not the place for meanings -- which is precisely what makes the vacuous dictionary lookup such a weak debating device. It is a particular favorite among creationist debaters -- already predisposed, as they tend to be, to the notion that authority is something that comes from a book. I find nothing so annoying as the triumphant displaying of a dictionary definition of a word, presented as if there could be no doubt about it being the final word on the matter (er... so to speak).

Books make wonderful servants, but terrible masters, and it's never worse than when it's someone else's book.

I still stand by what I had to say about it several years ago:

I think the question "What is the meaning of meaning" goes way beyond linguistics or semantics.

The aspect of this that I find most interesting is the extent to which the meaningfulness (is that a word?) of a body of information (in whatever form) can exist independent of any mechanism for decoding it; in other words, to what extent does meaning reside with the information, and to what extent does it reside with the decoding mechanism?

I forget whether the following gem is from Pinker, or Dennett, or who, but consider this (short) conversation between a man and a woman:

Woman: "I'm leaving you."
Man: "Who is he?"

It takes only a moment to grasp the meaning of this brief exchange, but where does the meaning reside? Not in the words themselves, certainly; nor strictly speaking in the decoding mechanism either--neither of these two sentences poses a particularly difficult parsing challenge. The most important information actually resides in an enormous database of facts about the world. Accessing the pertinent data within a time frame that can make it useful in real time requires some very good guesswork.

Looking at Arabic (or Sanscrit) text is interesting for me in a different way than looking at some twigs scattered about on the beach; even though I cannot extract any more meaning from the former than from the latter, just knowing that it does contain meaning changes my perception of it. (It is usually safe to assume that twigs on a beach were not arranged by someone fluent in Arabic). Of course, it's possible that I might not find a particular passage in Arabic to be meaningful even if I were able to read Arabic; it might simply be some nonsense written in Arabic, or it might use terms or concepts specific to a subject I am not familiar with.

In other words, there are at least two levels at which it might (or might not) be meaningful: the level of syntax and the level of content; and at either level, my abilitiy to understand can also fail--even in the face of well-formed, meaningful content.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As I predicted, the dictionary definitions of god have us completely bollocksed up.



~~ Paul

You should apply for the challenge money!

 

[T'ai Chi]

But you don't accept dictionary definitions on everything, so either they are not the place for definitions, or you were prevaricating.

How does that change the fact that dictionaries are the place for definitions?