Semantics and Terminology

[JohnC]

As a newcomer to this forum, I am intrigued by the amount of debate that takes place over basic terminology. In practical terms, semantic argument often seems to complicate and hamper the debating process. We should also be aware that some contributors may be using English as a foreign language when trying to follow or debate complex issues with erudite scholars.

By way of an example: my understanding of the concept of 'knowledge' may agree with several dictionary definitions, but, in the context of this forum, you may feel that all published definitions are either poor, questionable, incomplete or outmoded. You may also reserve the right to question what I mean by 'understanding' (here we go). To further complicate matters, English is evolving every day; idioms and new words are constantly being created and new connotations are placed on old ones. Has 'Big Bang' meant the same for the last ten years?

Purely as an excercise in furthering the aims of fair play, it would seem to me that the adoption of a short IIDB Philosophical Reference Dictionary might be a worthwhile endeavour. The meaning of each term could be fully debated, and, if a consensus is reached, the term would be duly elevated to become the official IIDB definition; a handy yardstick with which to beat your opponent.

Perhaps debates could then move along in a tidy fashion without constant argument about the accepted meaning of terms like 'evidence' and 'scientific proof'. If one is seeking to redefine a specific term, then it could become the subject of a revision debate.

As to the possible candidate terms, perhaps we could start by searching for instances in past threads where the word 'define' or 'definition' appears and propose the relevant term for debate and subsequent inclusion.

Perhaps we should be cautious about including terms that are the crux of any debate. Could the definition of a term such as 'divine being' be easily agreed upon by all sides?

I don't know if this proposal is even feasible, but I welcome your comments and proposals for the most-disputed words or phrases - an interesting thread in itself.

Best regards
John

[Pyrrho]

I doubt that any consensus would be forthcoming for any interesting terms, as people are often emotionally attached to their own preferred definitions, and fail to realize that most words have multiple common definitions. One finds this frequently with words like "atheism" and "agnosticism", though both terms have multiple common definitions. So one sees people write of "the" definition of such terms, which makes them invariably wrong, even if they use a correct definition. (They are wrong because "the definition" indicates one definition, and the terms have multiple definitions.)

However, I agree that a set of "standard" definitions, for the purposes of this site, might be useful. Naturally, a disclaimer acknowledging the fact that there are other common and correct definitions of the terms would be in order, but still it may help facilitate clearer communication between different people.

As for "divine being", I doubt that any decent definition could be produced for such a list, as such expressions are often so vague and nebulous as to be virtually (if not absolutely) meaningless. The same is true of the term "God" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49215).

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by JohnC
Purely as an excercise in furthering the aims of fair play, it would seem to me that the adoption of a short IIDB Philosophical Reference Dictionary might be a worthwhile endeavour. The meaning of each term could be fully debated, and, if a consensus is reached, the term would be duly elevated to become the official IIDB definition; a handy yardstick with which to beat your opponent.

Perhaps debates could then move along in a tidy fashion without constant argument about the accepted meaning of terms like 'evidence' and 'scientific proof'. If one is seeking to redefine a specific term, then it could become the subject of a revision debate.

As to the possible candidate terms, perhaps we could start by searching for instances in past threads where the word 'define' or 'definition' appears and propose the relevant term for debate and subsequent inclusion.

Perhaps we should be cautious about including terms that are the crux of any debate. Could the definition of a term such as 'divine being' be easily agreed upon by all sides?

I don't know if this proposal is even feasible, but I welcome your comments and proposals for the most-disputed words or phrases - an interesting thread in itself.


I think the development of a Reference Dictionary for the Philosophy Forum is a brilliant idea.

[trendkill]

I tend to see the endless semantic debates as a symptom of unwillingness to discuss charitably. Part of having a meaningful discussion is figuring out what your fellow discussants mean when they use terms. Beating someone over the head with a definition can be, and often is, on this site, a pointless, and at times even fallacious, exercise in arrogance. I've seen people try to prove something doesn't exist simply by semantically defining it out of existence.

I continue to become stronger in the opinion that standardizing definitions for the website may only exacerbate these problems, by giving would-be 'definition nazis' a stronger club.

[John Page]

Originally posted by JohnC
Purely as an excercise in furthering the aims of fair play, it would seem to me that the adoption of a short IIDB Philosophical Reference Dictionary might be a worthwhile endeavour. The meaning of each term could be fully debated, and, if a consensus is reached, the term would be duly elevated to become the official IIDB definition; a handy yardstick with which to beat your opponent.
A worthy goal, but:

What would fully debated mean?
Who gets to participate in the consensus?
How do you eliminate mass delusion from truth?
Aren't the differences in understandings part of the fun?
What do we mean by what do we mean?
Wouldn't your approach forestall any concept of multiple realizability?
How do you deal with multiple meanings where the same word is used differently within different philosophical spcialties - e.g. "objective".

Cheers, John

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
I think the development of a Reference Dictionary for the Philosophy Forum is a brilliant idea.
;)
Now, I must point out that Luise's use of the adjective brilliant is in the British English sense and Americans might not understand that colloquial context.

This highlights even more the need for the kind of dictionary suggested, perhaps with a refinement that it morphs depending upon such contexts. For example, this would enable Eliza Dolittle to exclaim "Goorn" and Prof. Higgins to understand this as "Not in a blue moon" without any semantic hiccups.

Cheers, John

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by John Page
;)
Now, I must point out that Luise's use of the adjective brilliant is in the British English sense and Americans might not understand that colloquial context.

This highlights even more the need for the kind of dictionary suggested, perhaps with a refinement that it morphs depending upon such contexts. For example, this would enable Eliza Dolittle to exclaim "Goorn" and Prof. Higgins to understand this as "Not in a blue moon" without any semantic hiccups.

Cheers, John

lol

Indeed, it would be rather jolly to explore the possibilities for developing a dynamic, intersubjectively-based, and open-to-revision-based-on-discussion/debate dictionary.

A smashing idea. Top-drawer. Wizard.

:D

[Gurdur]

I give up. Obviously resistance is useless.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
I give up. Obviously resistance is useless.

Eh?

:confused:

[Amos]

Originally posted by Luiseach
I think the development of a Reference Dictionary for the Philosophy Forum is a brilliant idea.

Would that not drag us to Rome?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Amos
Would that not drag us to Rome?

Okay, now I'm intrigued.

How would it drag us to Rome?

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Indeed, it would be rather jolly to explore the possibilities for developing a dynamic, intersubjectively-based, and open-to-revision-based-on-discussion/debate dictionary.
Yes, let's invent..... the mind!
Originally posted by Luiseach
A smashing idea. Top-drawer. Wizard.
Ticketty-boo. Spiffing. Cracking.

Cheers, John

[Amos]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Okay, now I'm intrigued.

How would it drag us to Rome?

Because that is where truth is piled ski-high and is why all roads lead to Rome.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Amos
Because that is where truth is piled ski-high and is why all roads lead to Rome.

Rome doesn't hold much sway with me. But dictionaries are fun. Especially the ones which are open to debate.

I'm rather fond of words for their own sake, though...so lexicography is itself a fascinating enterprise from my point of view.

Anyway, JohnC...your idea for a collaborative dictionary is a spiffing idea, in my opinion of course.

:cool:

[Amos]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Rome doesn't hold much sway with me. But dictionaries are fun. Especially the ones which are open to debate.



Oh I knew that and the same is true for most participants here or I would not have made the suggestion. But in truth, that is exactly why we need a new reference dictionary because outside of Rome the truth is scattered far and wide.

[JohnC]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Anyway, JohnC...your idea for a collaborative dictionary is a spiffing idea, in my opinion of course.
Thanks for the feedback so far. I admit that I was getting a tad radged at the use of the English archaisms. However, I should warn you that I am considering taking up 'learning to speak like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins'. A daunting task with a rather pathetic outcome! By the way John, we try to speak English in England - not British English. ;)

It's too early to tell whether the idea is feasible, but I will try to keep on top of any points as they come up.

Originally posted by trendkill
I tend to see the endless semantic debates as a symptom of unwillingness to discuss charitably. Part of having a meaningful discussion is figuring out what your fellow discussants mean when they use terms. Beating someone over the head with a definition can be, and often is, on this site, a pointless, and at times even fallacious, exercise in arrogance.

I agree about "charitably". The general concept of the dictionary is to facilitate progress without having to keep "figuring out what your fellow discussants mean when they use terms". The dictionary would have to be kept to quite simple terms to avoid spoiling the thrill of the chase. I trust I made it clear that crucial terms like 'god' would not be debated ad nauseum because a majority decision to include any definition would be meaningless due to the comparatively small sample size. I was thinking more along the lines of terms like 'impartial' and 'burden of proof'. So an exchange between a (C)laimant and a (S)keptic may go something like this:
C. My dog can speak with a perfect English accent.
S. We would need a burden of proof to support your claim.
C. You can hear him say 'Cor blimey guv'.
S. Mmm, but can he do it more than once in front of an impartial panel?
C. Ah, that depends on what you mean by 'impartial'...
After months of debate, the demonstration finally goes ahead but the dog dies of old age half way through the test...
C. Well, do you believe it now?
S. That depends on whether all the members of the panel believe it. Some don't have any beliefs... they just look for the burden of proof...
Four hours later...
S. I'm sorry, we should have explained what is meant by the term 'burden of proof'. In any case, your dog sounded just like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins so your claim is unsupported.

Ignoring any mess in the above scenario, hopefully we can agree that it would have proceeded a lot more smoothly if both parties (and the panel) were all agreed on the terminology, including how they define a 'perfect English accent'.

Having a yardstick (I regret using the violent turn of phrase) for some basic terms would be akin to being able to use an Act of Parliament without having to know every judge's ruling on terms used in that act. For example, what constitutes a penknife could be defined by listing all the attributes of every penknife ever made below a certain size. In court however, a judge may rule that a penknife is 'a penknife in the ordinary sense of the word, as carried by many a schoolboy, that is, not a writing pen with the nib removed and a six inch blade attached by means of adhesive tape, as used in this dreadful case. This does not constitute a penknife and is not exempt under the Act.

Judges' rulings are duly recorded and published and, at any point in time, form a finite set of definitions and precedents for others to refer to. In the present context, the terms would always be open to challenge (as in an appeal) but would have passed a majority test before being included.

Originally posted by John Page
A worthy goal, but:

>What would fully debated mean?
I think this would mean however much debate it took to reach a consensus.
>Who gets to participate in the consensus?
All the debaters. I assume here that 'consensus' is just another way of saying 'agreement of the majority'.
>How do you eliminate mass delusion from truth?
I'm tempted to ask how we ever agree on any dictionary definition. As long as the majority agree on the definition then it would be a valid candidate for inclusion, until it is challenged.
>Aren't the differences in understandings part of the fun?
Yes but are they also a colossal waste of time? (Eg please define fun.)
>What do we mean by what do we mean?
What do we intend to express or convey?
>Wouldn't your approach forestall any concept of multiple realizability?
Well, could 'multiple realizability' be a good candidate for debate? Is this something which could be realised by multiple minds in multiple ways?
>How do you deal with multiple meanings where the same word is used differently within different philosophical spcialties - e.g. "objective".
That's a good example; I think I get your drift. I suppose any definition must have different contexts so if the consensus is that 'wave' means something else when talking about light, then so be it. IMO, 'objective' is just the kind of word that could balk an otherwise meaningful debate.

To close, if we could get to a state where everyone on here knew that they could lookup a new word and that there was a formal appeal process for anything in the dictionary that they disagreed with, then I think that would create a good working environment for learning.

Teacher: Some religions believe in the existence of souls.
Me (aged six, with hand raised): What are souls Miss?
Teacher: I know John, but let's try to respect their beliefs.

[John Page]

Originally posted by JohnC
By the way John, we try to speak English in England - not British English. ;)
I know, I was writing for the mall rats (that's shopping centre rodents, for you). :)
Originally posted by JohnC
In any case, your dog sounded just like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins so your claim is unsupported.
:D
Originally posted by JohnC
Judges' rulings are duly recorded and published and, at any point in time, form a finite set of definitions and precedents for others to refer to. In the present context, the terms would always be open to challenge (as in an appeal) but would have passed a majority test before being included.
So, you're suggesting philosophy by case, rather than statute? Being a relativist, I'm all for this - but how do you then prevent philosophy become either a fashion victim or the mere unthinking product of social pressure?
Originally posted by JohnC
>Aren't the differences in understandings part of the fun?
Yes but are they also a colossal waste of time? (Eg please define fun.)
Fun, objective of humorous hedonists. I plead (yes, I'm a little pleader) that the agenda is to understand the differences. Our minds derive pleasure from this because evolution has made it so.
Originally posted by JohnC
>How do you deal with multiple meanings where the same word is used differently within different philosophical spcialties - e.g. "objective".
That's a good example; I think I get your drift. I suppose any definition must have different contexts so if the consensus is that 'wave' means something else when talking about light, then so be it. IMO, 'objective' is just the kind of word that could balk an otherwise meaningful debate.
Yea, I made a good point! Seriously, I think the fount of meaning is the interrelationship between concepts in the mind and it is the function of language to convey these meanings. To discuss and agree completely and without a shadow of misunderstanding would require normalization of the minds that contain the meaning.

I think Luise is more of an expert on such matters, but we then need to attend to interpretation of the agreed upon definition. The perfect reader ;) in that context would be a mind that is able to simulate all other readers. The "author", of course, would be all those who contributed to the debate.
Originally posted by JohnC
To close, if we could get to a state where everyone on here knew that they could lookup a new word and that there was a formal appeal process for anything in the dictionary that they disagreed with, then I think that would create a good working environment for learning.
I suggest you call the dictionary "Humpty":
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.'
....which brings me on to cultural references....

Cheers, John

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by John Page
I think Luise is more of an expert on such matters...

lolol! That's really amusing. I protest: I am not an expert at anything, nor would I aspire to be. How very dull to be an expert.

I much prefer the 'perpetual student' appellation my father often attaches to me.


I suggest you call the dictionary "Humpty":


Now that's a capital idea.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Amos

Because that is where truth is piled ski-high and is why all roads lead to Rome.
Only ski - high ?
That's much less than three metres ---- much less than nine feet --- you know.

No offence, but I prefer the truth to be found on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
It's piled far higher, for a start.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Eh?

:confused: The exchange of English superlative exclamations on this thread discombulates my cognitive abilities.

It gobsmacks my brain.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
It gobsmacks my brain.

That's probably because the air is pretty thin where you are.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Gurdur
The exchange of English superlative exclamations on this thread discombulates my cognitive abilities.
*strongly resists temptation to respond by posting words like, topper, bung-ho, by jiminy, golly gosh etc. and posts an original word from the Simpsons (not Edward & Wallace, either) instead*

Craptapula.

[JohnC]

Originally posted by John Page
Craptapula.
Did you mean to say 'craptacular' or is 'craptapula' a new word?

Originally posted by Gurdur
The exchange of English superlative exclamations on this thread discombulates my cognitive abilities.
It gobsmacks my brain.
Did you mean to say 'discombobulates'? This is confusing me! I assume you don't use 'gobsmacked' much either. In England we tend to use it as an adjective eg "I was dumfounded; totally gobsmacked!" rather than using it as a verb on a part of the body or someone else. It is interesting how these differences can be very subtle. I suppose it is like me saying I was 'shucked'.

I propose that we try to develop a collaborative dictionary of useful terms so we can all get on with the business of developing a collaborative dictionary of useful terms. :banghead:

BTW, I do like 'Humpty' - especially as the author was probably 'under the influence' when he was conceived. But hang on a minute - isn't Humpty Dumpty the egg that ended up as lots of disconnected pieces - permanently?

Sounds perfect - just perfect.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by trendkill
I tend to see the endless semantic debates as a symptom of unwillingness to discuss charitably. Part of having a meaningful discussion is figuring out what your fellow discussants mean when they use terms. Beating someone over the head with a definition can be, and often is, on this site, a pointless, and at times even fallacious, exercise in arrogance. I've seen people try to prove something doesn't exist simply by semantically defining it out of existence.

I agree. Unfortunately, human language is riddled with ambiguities. Comprehensive, unambiguous definitions tend to be extremely long, clumsy, and hard to understand -- just look at any legal statute. Moreover, the definitions tend to contain terms which, themselves, require formal definitions or some sort of common understanding. This process can go on ad nauseum which, I am sure, is part of the reason why it takes so much time to become qualified to practice law.

The reason care is taken to make sure that laws are defined in as comprehensive and unambiguous a manner as possible is because fairness in law demands that everyone be judged according to a single standard. Even so, many court cases hinge on the interpretation of the meaning of a particular statute or ruling.

In a legal case, at least in English-style adversarial systems, all of the debaters take sides: they "pick" their position before trial and then defend that position to the bitter end, using any technique or tactic that they can get away with, according to the rules of the system and the rulings of the judge. This is understandable, since the object of each side is, more or less, to win, and not to generate some sort of reasoned consensus among the involved parties. When people approach philosophical debates as though they were legal cases: when each participant has a vested interested in his or her particular position, then the arguments are likely to degenerate to the same sort of nit picking, and definitional disagreements.

An honest and constructive debate is much more likely when all of the participants share a common interest: to bring about a consensus based on all available evidence and arguments. In such a debate, each participant would take great care to try to make her own meaning clear while at the same time taking equal care to try to interpret the meaning of other participant's arguments in the way that they intended them to be taken and not in the way that is easiest to refute.

The lesson seems to be that we are unlikely to have much in the way of an honest or constructive debate with someone who has a vested interest in defending a particular position. The best we can hope for is to state our positions and then let any undecided observers who might be present make up their minds. It is also important to note that it is very easy, especially in a public forum like this one, to force someone to take a vested interest in a position that they might previously have only been defending because of a dispassionate belief that it was correct. This can be done by tying the person to the position, which is easy to do by simply saying something like, "that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard," or something similar. Once you do that, you more or less force the person to defend that position or else admit to being an idiot or a fool. Someone who is a true believer or who feels bound to defend a particular position, right or wrong, is not likely to do much to facilitate an enlightened and constructive debate.

[trendkill]

Originally posted by JohnC

I agree about "charitably". The general concept of the dictionary is to facilitate progress without having to keep "figuring out what your fellow discussants mean when they use terms".Well, I don't believe in shortcuts in this case. If all you want is a yardstick to get a general idea of what words are considered to mean, then that could be a good idea, but there are already dictionaries in existence. Agreeing on "yardstick" definitions for the few terms that aren't usually found in dictionaries but are commonly used here might make sense, though.

Beyond that, we have to listen to each other. I don't see any way around it, unfortunately. :P

[JohnC]

If anyone fancies carrying on with this then can I suggest we try to run 'paranormal' up the flagpole and see how it flaps? This word crops up a lot in all sorts of debates and seems to be loaded with baggage from our scientific or religious standpoint.

Trendkill:
...there are already dictionaries in existence.
I agree but could we do any better for this forum?

As an example, using GoogleTM to define 'paranormal' comes up with a few definitions that seem to (roughly) fall into four classes:

1. Senses/experience
a. Seemingly outside normal sensory channels
b. Beyond or above normal human powers or senses.
c. Outside of normal human experience, Ghosts etc,

2. Scientific Law
a. Not in accordance with scientific laws
b. Term used to denote any phenomenon which appears to be inexplicable by current scientific theories.
c. Phenomena that are out of the realm of that which is explainable through conventional science.
d. Phenomena which seem to go beyond known laws of cause and effect; frequently used as a synonym to parapsychological or psychic.
e. Phenomena which seem to defy the known laws of science.

3. Scientific Explanation
a. Beyond the normal [sic] of human or scientific explanation.
b. Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.
c. Of or pertaining to events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation, as clairvoyance or extrasensory perception.

4. Spiritual
a. Something that happens in the psychic or spiritual world

Feel free to add more, reclassify or solve as you see fit.

The above list shows how confusing it can be when one states things like, "...that kind of event is not paranormal, in the strict dictionary sense...". Does this always lead to a charge of equivocation? If not, why not?

Regardless of where the above definitions come from, another point is that some common dictionary definitions can include assumptions that should be objectionable in the context of this forum. Eg in 3b, the definition assumes we all know what is meant by 'normal'. Does this make all such definitions worthless in a philosophical context because we proceed to conclusions knowing that we have made assumptions along the way?

If language is the main tool of argument, is it fair to say that if we cannot agree on a definition of 'definition', then we are trapped in a circular argument and wasting our time? As in:
Any definition containing an assumption or a word that can be equivocated, is useless (in a philosophical debate).

PS. Should I feel guilty and apologise when I ask so many questions?:o