Too much focus on definitions?

[T'ai Chi]

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.

 

[vbloke]

because too many people use definitions to mean other things

Take Michael Behe's definition of "science" during the Dover trials - he defined it to mean pretty much anything except what science actually is.

If someone claims that their alleged powers work because of "quantum vibrations", I'd very much like to know excatly what these "quantum vibrations" are, how they work and what their understanding of QM is.

 

[Hastur]

Because definitions keep debates on track. Read some creationist/evolutionist debates and watch the Humpty Dumpty tactics of the creationists, especially when scientific terms are used. Oh, I forgot. You're above such things. You'd rather pontificate about the Holy Science of Statistics and how it rules over all.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Oh, I forgot. You're above such things. You'd rather pontificate about the Holy Science of Statistics and how it rules over all.

Please take your personal beefs elsewhere.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What people often don't realize is that we don't only need to be clear about the definitions of the critical words employed, but also in the backgrounds of the individuals involved in a discussion.

 

[Hastur]

Very true, Bodhi. Some people refuse to debate rationally and all there is to do is watch them self-destruct. Or stick their noses in the air and proclaim their superiority like T'ai Chi here.

 

[Z]

Any rational debate out to begin with a clear definitions of terms and concepts used.

For example, asking, "Is it in anyway possible that gods exist?" is insufficient. "Is it in any way possible that Allah exists" brings us closer to something we may debate.

Take, for example, the notion of 'consciousness'. As I understand it, consciousness is equivalent to cognition; it is a simple condition of any system which has senses, memory, sense of self, thought processing, etc. However, Ian equates consciousness to soul, so when the two of us begin discussing consciousness, we come to quite different conclusions.

Without clear definitions, one has no argument.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Or stick their noses in the air and proclaim their superiority like T'ai Chi here.

Hastur, feel free to start another thread on where I supposedly proclaimed my supposed superiority, but please stick to the topic here and not personal attacks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Any rational debate out to begin with a clear definitions of terms and concepts used.

I agree about it is important to all be 'on the same page'. I just worry that too much focus on definitions almost amounts to saying that words create reality.

 

[Z]

I agree about it is important to all be 'on the same page'. I just worry that too much focus on definitions almost amounts to saying that words create reality.

Words define reality in a meaningful manner to allow for communication.

If I tell you to go to Shazbourne and pick up to lamquats, then deliver them to Mequik and prepare to be upshaftmonkeyslapped, are you going to have any idea what to do... or what the consequences will be... without definition?

Debate is facilitated when communication is precise.

 

[Dymanic]

I think it depends on what your definition of the word "definition" is.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The definition used in the debate does not need to be the most accurate, or widely used, or whatever. It needs to be agreed upon by those in the debate. Once that is done, the debate can move forward. If the parties can not agree upon a definition, there is not way to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Santa666]

Words define reality in a meaningful manner to allow for communication.

If I tell you to go to Shazbourne and pick up to lamquats, then deliver them to Mequik and prepare to be upshaftmonkeyslapped, are you going to have any idea what to do... or what the consequences will be... without definition?

Debate is facilitated when communication is precise.

I have fair idea of what upshaftmonkeyslapped might mean, and I sure do not want it to happen to me.


Santa

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree about it is important to all be 'on the same page'. I just worry that too much focus on definitions almost amounts to saying that words create reality.

Hell, I'd be satisfied with being on the same page with some of these words. Really, I have no idea what god means. I don't even know the book, let alone the page.

Your argument about words creating reality doesn't mean anything when we're talking about god. Again, I'd be happy if you showed me the reality, then we could agree to call it god. Where is it? Nowhere. All there is are words.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

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.

Where is it? Nowhere.

I never claimed I was able to know where god(s) is. But you've admitted you have "no idea" what god means, yet you're certain god is "nowhere". Not consistent at all.

 

[Mercutio]

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.

You (should) know better than this. The definitions used in science are often very different from those in the dictionary. When we use hazy definitions, we may say we agree when we do not, or say we disagree when we actually agree. Paul can understand the dictionary definition perfectly, and it may have absolutely no bearing on the question of this thread.

I never claimed I was able to know where god(s) is. But you've admitted you have "no idea" what god means, yet you're certain god is "nowhere". Not consistent at all.

Nice quote of Paul's. You removed it from the context that makes what you have said here false.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You (should) know better than this. The definitions used in science are often very different from those in the dictionary.

I'm not sure it was said that we are doing science here. Paul certainly didn't say it.

You removed it from the context that makes what you have said here false.

Poor attempt at calling quote mining. If you understood the context, you'd have understood that me only quoting a fraction of what Paul said isn't inconsistent with him saying what he did.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Poor attempt at calling quote mining. If you understood the context, you'd have understood that me only quoting a fraction of what Paul said isn't inconsistent with him saying what he did.

Let's try it again, shall we?

Your argument about words creating reality doesn't mean anything when we're talking about god. Again, I'd be happy if you showed me the reality, then we could agree to call it god. Where is it? Nowhere. All there is are words.

You would like reality to create words and not the other way around. Fine. So show me the reality that is called god and I will accept it as generating the definition of the word. But you cannot show me this reality. We can only talk about it. All we have is words. Therefore, we have to put up with words creating the reality, which means we need a good definition.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

You would like reality to create words and not the other way around. Fine. So show me the reality that is called god and I will accept it as generating the definition of the word. But you cannot show me this reality.

But I never made the claim that I could, or that anyone has.

I've in the past only made the logical argument that because we haven't surveyed all of space and time, we cannot rule out god(s) existing.

, which means we need a good definition.

As pointed out, dictionaries have definitions of the word "god". If you don't like them, that is another issue.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm not sure it was said that we are doing science here. Paul certainly didn't say it.

Science is only one arena where definitions may differ. Philosophy may be another. Politics another. See what you are doing in this very quote? You are taking what I said in its narrowest meaning, and claiming (correctly, if restricted to the narrow meaning) that it does not apply. Essentially, your argument is one of definition. If, instead, you took what I said as one example of many possible, then your complaint falls apart. So...are definitions important?

Poor attempt at calling quote mining. If you understood the context, you'd have understood that me only quoting a fraction of what Paul said isn't inconsistent with him saying what he did.

Isn't necessarily inconsistent. In this case, though, it was. So, yes, yours was a poor attempt at quote mining.