CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
10
True (I get you) False (WTF?)
Debate Score:19
Arguments:17
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (I get you) (8)
 
 False (WTF?) (9)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



To accept a definition as valid, is to accept it's intrinsic supposed truths

A definition, if valid, is a true explanation of a terms meaning. Terms are language components that are supposed to refer to things we can be aware of. Sometimes there are misuses and misunderstandings of terms that cause confusion. Usually this is due to faulty interpretations of fairly valid definitions, and in some instances it is due to poorly created definitions.

To accept a definition as valid, is to affirm that it truly describes the subject to which it is supposed to refer to. Terms if used legitimately must refer to phenomena we can be aware of.

Therefore for example to even suppose that (insert singular term here) does not exist is technically unintelligible.

True (I get you)

Side Score: 9
VS.

False (WTF?)

Side Score: 10
2 points

IMO your somewhat poorly stated idea was actually

"To accept an assertion as valid, is to accept its supporting assumptions."

If that is what you meant, you are correct.

Behind all opinions, beliefs and theories there are assumptions, each with varying degrees of validity.

Side: True (I get you)
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

Thank you for sharing your opinion that my idea was poorly stated, but I rather think you are ignoring that I want to talk about "definitions".

You seem to understand the obvious...as evidenced by your statement: "To accept an assertion as valid, is to accept its supporting assumptions."

If that is what you meant, you are correct.

Maybe if I had titled this debate.."Definitions are assertions" you wouldn't have thought it so poorly stated?

Behind all opinions, beliefs and theories there are assumptions, each with varying degrees of validity.

Great. Assuming you agree that it is possible for a definition to be invalid, would this be because it was built upon false assumptions?

Side: True (I get you)
daver(1759) Disputed
1 point

Well just for fun, I Googled "definition" and its simply a statement about the meaning of a word or phrase. So guess I'm not smart enough to decipher your unusual use of the word "definition".

You made clear that you want to talk about "definitions", I got that much. Can you restate what your trying to say about "definitions" using different words.

Side: False (WTF?)

As with many definitions there are supposed truths that may or may not fit the item/word being defined. Take the word god for example; there are defintions of god that don't define god as being supernatural and so those intrinsic supposed truths such as God being supernatural cannot and must not be used. A definition is valid based only on the definition (the blatant truth) and not on any supposed truths.

Side: False (WTF?)
1 point

Anything that is not explicitly stated, is an assumption, which is akin to a guess. Thus not inherently believed, when one accepts a definition.

Side: False (WTF?)
1 point

Definitions aren't propositions. Therefore definitions don't have truth values and hence can't be valid or invalid. It's a misconception that a definition can be valid. A definition is not a proposition, it's not a statement about the nature of reality. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter how we define things. It just means that definitions don't have to make sense.

Do I have to accept the supposed truths of a definition? No, if I define horses as circular squares I do not suppose that a square can be circular (which would be it's intrinsic supposed truth). In fact, if I go along with the definition then it's possible to show that no horses can exist because the existence of a horse would be a logical contradiction.

So this definition is useless because we can show that there exists nothing that has the quality of being a horse (a circular square). But that doesn't stop me from defining horses in this way; I am not proposing that a horse exists. I am in fact not proposing anything. I am not saying that what we usually mean by horse lines up with what I am defining as a horse here.

Therefore, if I have proved that no horses (circular squares) exists I have not magically proved that no actual horse (four legged mammal) exists. I have simply showed that a horse with the qualities I have defined do not exists. So if I were to make a debate about religion, and if I define religion in a specific way and then make some proposition about religion defined in this particular way, then I am not necessarily proposing anything about religion-as-commonly-understood. I have simply proposed something about phenomenons with the particular qualities I have designated. In order to say anything about religion as commonly understood, then I have to make sure my definition lines up with what we understand as religion. That's how we judge whether a definition is useful, we judge it by the extent with which it lines up with what we mean.

Side: False (WTF?)
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with much of that, and agree with some of that

1.Definitions aren't propositions. Disagree

2. definitions don't have truth values and hence can't be valid or invalid. Disagree

3.It's a misconception that a definition can be valid. undecided

4. A definition is not a proposition, it's not a statement about the nature of reality. disagree

5. definitions don't have to make sense. disagree

6. Do I have to accept the supposed truths of a definition? No agree

7. if I define horses as circular squares I do not suppose that a square can be circular disagree

8. if I go along with the definition then it's possible to show that no horses can exist because the existence of a horse would be a logical contradiction. Showing a definition to be logically invalid, is not establishing non-existence of what we are trying to define.

9. So this definition is useless because we can show that there exists nothing that has the quality of being a horse (a circular square). To the contrary, these definitions that rest on logical contradictions are quite useful.....for confusing the living daylights out of us as a species. We need to stop as you say "going by" them.

10. But that doesn't stop me from defining horses in this way it should

11. I am not proposing that a horse exists. By defining it yes you are.

12. I am in fact not proposing anything. disagree

13. I am not saying that what we usually mean by horse lines up with what I am defining as a horse here. I should hope not!

14. if I have proved that no horses (circular squares) exists I have not magically proved that no actual horse (four legged mammal) exists. I have simply showed that a horse with the qualities I have defined do not exists. agreed

15. So if I were to make a debate about religion, and if I define religion in a specific way and then make some proposition about religion defined in this particular way, then I am not necessarily proposing anything about religion-as-commonly-understood. I have simply proposed something about phenomenons with the particular qualities I have designated. In order to say anything about religion as commonly understood, then I have to make sure my definition lines up with what we understand as religion. That's how we judge whether a definition is useful, we judge it by the extent with which it lines up with what we mean. How big is this "we" that I should be concerned with making sure my definitions "line up with"? Argumentum adpopulum any?

15.

Side: True (I get you)
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
0 points

That has to be the rudest while completely unproductive response I have ever gotten on CD.

Side: False (WTF?)
1 point

There is no such thing as intrinsic truth... What exactly is that supposed to be?

Side: False (WTF?)
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

I'll start with the google definition of "car" as an example

Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

To accept the above definition of "car" as valid, you would have to accept the following statements as true.

1. There is a category of vehicles used for road travel

2. There are things called wheels

3. internal combustion engines are capable or powering things

4. things are capable of carrying people

Now to get controversial, let's look at the google definition of god

The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

In order to accept this definition as valid one must assume 1, 2, and 3

1. There is a universe that was created and can be ruled

2. The concept of Moral authority is valid

3. Some beings are superior to others

Side: True (I get you)
Imperfiect(44) Disputed
1 point

I see nothing as intrinsically true their. It's all relatively valid based on the other data provided that is all.

Side: False (WTF?)