Too much focus on definitions?

[CFLarsen]

Well, this thread certainly demonstrates how we get nowhere if the participants aren't willing to define their terms, T'ai.

I doubt T'ai will get the irony.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I define "god", for the purpose of this post, as a white hard hat.

Does a god exist?

Yes. There is one in front of me.

Next question? People, this is elementary and god has nowt to do with it. If the only channel of communication between two people is linguistic, they must share a language. For the duration of the discussion, they must use words to mean the same things, or misunderstanding will occur.

Even if they manage that, they must also share a great deal of cultural referents. There will still be misunderstanding.

Given the one dimensional nature of an international web board, it is more important still to pin down definition of terms likely to be disputed.
So Tai Chi is correct . We do get more concerned with definition here than would be the case in (say) a family discussing home economics. Even then, teenagers don't understand words like "cost" "value" or "no" the same way adults do.

This does not mean words create reality. Reality can arrive at well over the spead of sound, often with explosives attached.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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".

Well, we say, from our language, that they are communicating, it might be so but without a conceptual life, they are doing like zombies. Furthermore, if they have just primitive meanings in their sounds, how is that we call it communication? Guess it depends on what we mean by that word.

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 see your point. But again, this depends on what we mean by "think".

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.

Granted, but a "primitive need" may have in common with an elaborated language based "abstract need" the same as the "C" note have with a symphony.

Oh what the... excuse me for not having time to elaborate more.

 

[Dymanic]

Well, we say, from our language, that they are communicating, it might be so but without a conceptual life, they are doing like zombies.

Mu.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Right!

 

[drkitten]

Well, we say, from our language, that they are communicating, it might be so but without a conceptual life, they are doing like zombies. Furthermore, if they have just primitive meanings in their sounds, how is that we call it communication? Guess it depends on what we mean by that word.

The basic problem, though, is that humans also "communicate" like animals. Ask any new parent. An infant will cry when it is hungry, scared, uncomfortable, and so forth. They also respond to facial expressions. Infants have to learn how to use language, but they don't appear to need to learn how to communicate.

You can, I guess, assume that infants lack a conceptual life, that they are "zombies," but adults retain many of the same "instinctive" emotional reactions that infants do (drop a plate and see how many people in the room display the startle reflex, even before they verbalize a response). Does this mean that if I manipulate the environment in order to produce a desired response in you, I'm not "communicating"? It seems an odd use of the word, and conflicts with much that's been written, for example, about things like designing effective advertisements (which "communicate" effectively at the emotional level).

 

[T'ai Chi]

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.

That's nice.

Your opinion is noted, and discarded, as usual.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Well, this thread certainly demonstrates how we get nowhere if the participants aren't willing to define their terms, T'ai.

~~ Paul

You're aware of dictionary definitions, you just dismiss them. Not much one can do about that.

 

[Mercutio]

You're aware of dictionary definitions, you just dismiss them. Not much one can do about that.

You have done so yourself on this thread...or is there a difference between claiming that a dictionary definition is inadequate (as Paul does), and claiming that another person is wrong when they assume you accept the dictionary definition (as you do)?

on second thought, never mind.





At least when I ask questions of Ian, I get straight answers.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's nice.

Your opinion is noted, and discarded, as usual.

I guess I should thank you for proving my point.

You're one sad character, Justin.

 

[Tricky]

You have done so yourself on this thread...or is there a difference between claiming that a dictionary definition is inadequate (as Paul does), and claiming that another person is wrong when they assume you accept the dictionary definition (as you do)?

I made a similar point earlier. T'ai agrees the dictionary definitions are at best, incomplete, yet still chides others for asking for clarity.

At least when I ask questions of Ian, I get straight answers.

Depending on how you define "straight".

 

[T'ai Chi]

You're one sad character, Justin.

Wake me when its over!

 

[T'ai Chi]

At least when I ask questions of Ian, I get straight answers.

You're getting them, just not understanding them.

As stated, me personally not liking the definitions doesn't take away from the people who do make a rational decision based on the definitions, which was the topic.

You need to distinguish between the messenger with the message.

 

[Tricky]

As stated, me personally not liking the definitions doesn't take away from the people who do make a rational decision based on the definitions, which was the topic.

Actually, the OP took the position that dictionaries were not very important in debates except on skeptic sites. I do not believe you have ever adequately supported this position. For example, try to get a right-winger and a left winger to agree on the meaning of freedom in any debating situation.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Actually, the OP took the position that dictionaries were not very important in debates except on skeptic sites.

Since I wrote the OP, I can safely say you misunderstood it. Nowhere did I say "except" on skeptic sites.

I basically said I've seen an over-emphasis on the importance of definitions shown on skeptic movement bulletin boards.

Me saying I've seen such things is not an extraordinary claim in the slightest.

 

[Mercutio]

Depending on how you define "straight".

I know that it is a bit of a sport around here to shoot at Ian, but my own experience with him has been preponderately positive. He has, the majority of the time, been quite honest and straightforward in his arguments with me. No, not always. But I don't know who would meet that standard.

 

[Mercutio]

You're getting them, just not understanding them.

And you know I am not understanding them because...

You are psychic? Isn't it possible that I understand you perfectly, but that your answers reflect your misunderstanding? (this is a yes or no question--do you agree that this is possible?)

As stated, me personally not liking the definitions doesn't take away from the people who do make a rational decision based on the definitions, which was the topic.

If I agree, am I suggesting that you differ from those who make rational decisions?

You need to distinguish between the messenger with the message.

"And" the message... When your message is coherent, I will attend to it. So far, you may think I am reacting to you. I assure you, I am reacting to your message. Sorry.

 

[Tricky]

Since I wrote the OP, I can safely say you misunderstood it. Nowhere did I say "except" on skeptic sites.

I basically said I've seen an over-emphasis on the importance of definitions shown on skeptic movement bulletin boards.

Get serious, Tai. These are your exact words.

...dictionaries are not too important in debates as a general perusal of skeptical boards would lead one to think.

No, saying "except on skeptic sites" wasn't an exact quote, but I think it was an accurate paraphrasing. You are saying it is not important in most debates, but you would think it was if you perused skeptic sites. That is quite clearly making skeptic sites an exception to other types of debate.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that other debate forums have less debate about definitions, so while you claim may not be "extraordinary", it is certainly unsupported.

If you are misunderstood, then to be generous, I ascribe it to you being really awful at communication. It could be simple dishonesty and trying to run away from what you've said, but I'm sure you'd never do that.

 

[Rasmus]

What does "I'm sure" mean to you?

I apologize; both my irony and sarcasm tags have been malfunctioning earlier on... they should have automatiically wrapped themselves around what I said there.

Rasmus.

 

[Melendwyr]

If you don't have clear definitions, how do you know what you're arguing about?