• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Too much focus on definitions?

T'ai Chi said:
How does that change the fact that dictionaries are the place for definitions?
Click to expand...

Without assuming I speak for Tricky, may I suggest that use of the definate article "the" would tend to indicate an opinion that a dictionary would be the only authority on a defintion, otherwise you might have worded it, "dictionaries are a place for definitions", and thus his emphasis on the precise word you used.
 
petre said:
Without assuming I speak for Tricky, may I suggest that use of the definate article "the" would tend to indicate an opinion that a dictionary would be the only authority on a defintion, otherwise you might have worded it, "dictionaries are a place for definitions", and thus his emphasis on the precise word you used.
Click to expand...

They're certainly the main place for definitions. I don't think heading to the refrigerator or to my shoes when I heard need a definition.
 
There are often words which require greater definitions... now of course we can break it up and ask for definitions of every single word and get no where - but that usually isn't our aim. Our aim is simply to get a good working definition of what it is we are talking about, so we are more or less on the same page : D
 
T'ai said:
They're certainly the main place for definitions. I don't think heading to the refrigerator or to my shoes when I heard need a definition.
Click to expand...
But you aren't accepting the dictionary definition, so try someplace else! Your shoes couldn't be any worse.

~~ Paul
 
petre said:
Without assuming I speak for Tricky, may I suggest that use of the definate article "the" would tend to indicate an opinion that a dictionary would be the only authority on a defintion, otherwise you might have worded it, "dictionaries are a place for definitions", and thus his emphasis on the precise word you used.
Click to expand...
You pretty much nailed it.

There are many places for definitions. Many papers give definitions of the terms they will be using in introduction. Many books have glossaries. And still other papers and books are intended as lengthy definitions of a term or terms. I googled on "what is god" and got 449,000 hits. I'm betting a sizable number of those are lengthy definitions.

So it seems that maybe there are some definitions that are worth discussing at length, particularly if it is a subject that interests you. And if you enter a discussion in forums like these, you can pretty much be assured that precise terminology, rather than the "terse catalog of definitions" (thank you Chipmunk) is going to be frequently requested. If you're just interested in crossword puzzles, you're at the wrong spot.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not the only; lots of non-verbal communication occurs at all levels of life. Nor does thought, per se, depend on language. Agreed a human could not best communicate what he "thought" without it.
 
Without sticking too many bruisable body parts into the argument...

Sometimes people will try to use a specialised or slanted definition to try and win an argument. They'll spilt hairs over meaning and go to their favoured repositories just to get a slightly more ambiguous definition so they uphold their own argument that little longer. For example, as it's come up, here are the definitions of God from Dictionary.com and from AskOxford.com (the free section of The Oxford English Dictionary site). Whilst both contain the fundamentals of a monotheistic god the OED site goes on to describe superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes.. Having a reasonable interest in various mythologies this more aptly describes the numerous Pantheons that have been believed in, as opposed to
2 A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3 An image of a supernatural being; an idol.


Now where was I going....? Oh yeah :)

Most of the time words are defined by their common usage, barring technical stuff, and no matter how much we rally against it trying to say differently will get you a badge saying "I'm an Arse" (and if you're a Role Player it'll be subtitled Rules Lawyer). Look at the difference between now and 40 years ago if you called someone gay...
 
hammegk said:
Not the only; lots of non-verbal communication occurs at all levels of life. Nor does thought, per se, depend on language. Agreed a human could not best communicate what he "thought" without it.
Click to expand...

Im aware of those so called "non verbal communication" skills. But I doubt they can be labeled "communication" at all. The meaning of those skills is still based on regular language, afaik, and this makes them merely "extensions" of it instead of different ways to communicate.

Regarding "thought", Im not sure we can think either without depending on regular language.

Im interested in reading what you have to say about it.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Im aware of those so called "non verbal communication" skills. But I doubt they can be labeled "communication" at all. The meaning of those skills is still based on regular language, afaik, and this makes them merely "extensions" of it instead of different ways to communicate.
Click to expand...
But animals communicate all the time, and very often the messages are the same ones we ourselves often want to transmit, like: "Back off, sucker, that's mine".

Regarding "thought", I'm not sure we can think either without depending on regular language.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that's a very limited view, though it is understandable how that might tend to be the default assumption for a language-enabled person -- in much the same way that a sighted person might tend to underestimate the abilities of someone who is blind (especially someone born blind). Certain types of brain damage may result in global aphasia, but while afflicted individuals may not be able to speak, or to understand speech, they haven't necessarily lost the ability to think. We get so accustomed to having things funnelled through a certain channel (be it vision, or language) that we cannot imagine how it could be any other way.

I think that "thought" and "meaning" are essentially (or at least originally) extensions of needs and goals. Thought (whatever that is) exists only because needs -- and therefore, goals -- exist. If we understand one another at all, it is to the extent that we share the contexts those provide.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Something I've seen a lot skeptic movement bulletin boards, is a focus on definitions.

I've seen things like

1) you can't talk about something unless you can precisely define it
2) posting a definition will end the argument
3) debating X means posting definitions of X

to name a few fallacy-like things.

The way I see it, is take any word's definition. Its definition is composed of other words, each of which has a definition, which are composed of more words in the dictionary, etc. So there is no 'outside' source that says what a word really means. It seems besides getting a general idea of the usage of a word, or spelling, dictionaries are not too important in debates as a general perusal of skeptical boards would lead one to think.
Click to expand...
The thread seems to have ventured a bit off the original post.

In concern of skeptics focusing on definitions, this is essential to matters of philosophy and technical matters of logic. Ludwig Wittgenstein addressed many problems of semantics and definitions in philosophy and logic.

Many cases of philosophical debate have come down to only a difference of definitions. This has happened with the greatest philosophical minds down to the dirtiest barroom brawls. Huge arguments have been made where both parties agree but they are only using different definitions. Similarly, huge arguments have been made where parties are arguing over completely different thing because they had different definition over what was being argued about. This happens with the greatest minds, water-cooler conversation, philosophical debate, calls to your mother, chat with neighbors, etc.

One of the best cases for a worthless unresolved super heated argument is an argument where the parties have different definitions of terms. It will get hot. It will never end. It will go nowhere.

So definitions are very much needed. Of course constant requirements to drill down definitions when they are already “understood” is not an uncommon practice to out off actually arguing something that is already understood. Skeptics, or anyone, can take it too far. Any definition of anything has its breaking point.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
The thread seems to have ventured a bit off the original post.
Click to expand...
I found the point made in the OP to be reasonable enough, but rather trivial: sticking vacuous dictionary definitions in somebody's face is a cheap debating tactic. Without going off topic, what's left to discuss?

Ludwig Wittgenstein addressed many problems of semantics and definitions in philosophy and logic.
Click to expand...
I've seen it put even more strongly: that since Wittgenstein, the business of modern philosophy consists primarily of refining definitions.

One of the best cases for a worthless unresolved super heated argument is an argument where the parties have different definitions of terms. It will get hot. It will never end. It will go nowhere.
Click to expand...
See? It's about goals. Is what it IS is: if everybody's just trying to win, nobody will. If it doesn't get stuck on some stupid definition, it'll be something else. On the other hand, in the open, honest dialogue which occasionally does take place (however rarely), exploring the nuances of a particular term (or, even better, the concept it symbolizes) -- with someone having a different perspective -- can be a good way to identify self-enforced limitations in one's own thinking.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Maroons typically ask someone about belief before the person has stated they believe in anything. ;)
Click to expand...

That's the key problem here, isn't it? You are sooooooo careful not to state anything clearly about what you think yourself, because you are terrified to have it scrutinized.

When people ask you to clarify what you mean, you paint that as an attack on you, personally.

Why are you so afraid to state what you think? You have absolutely no problems asking others what they think.

Is it because you have no real opinions of your own? Or is it because you realize that your claims have no validity?
 
CFLarsen said:
You are sooooooo careful not to state anything clearly about what you think yourself,
Click to expand...

If you don't like that freedom, you are free to complain.

Is it because you have no real opinions of your own? Or is it because you realize that your claims have no validity?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's some third option that you are clueless about. ;)
 
T'ai Chi said:
If you don't like that freedom, you are free to complain.
Click to expand...

I am lamenting that you are unwilling to state what you mean, but prefer to keep people in the dark, after which you will criticize them for it.

You don't want to clarify. You want to create confusion.

T'ai Chi said:
I'm sure there's some third option that you are clueless about. ;)
Click to expand...

And that third option is?
 
Dear Claus, thanks for again screwing up what is an interesting thread with your meaningless personal vendettas.
 
Well, this thread certainly demonstrates how we get nowhere if the participants aren't willing to define their terms, T'ai.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom