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: 23
|
False (WTF?)
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
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)
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)
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?)
1
point
Signifiacnt improvement in technology is the ultimate goal of the owners. For that matter it is good to be in touch with www.airslate.com/product/ Side: True (I get you)
1
point
1
point
news ultime notizie dal mondo in ultima ora sport formula uno tennis calcio motogp dirette live streaming economia finanza mondo della moda donna style fashion viaggi e vacanze cucina e ricette tecnologia novita hi-tech salute e benessere cinema italiana gossip vip star notizie della scienza annunci lifestyle meteo oroscopo tv gaming foto e video news incontri personali News Ultime Notizie Side: True (I get you)
1
point
Hello, this weekend is good for me, since this time i am reading this enormous informative article here at my home. Adıyaman Tütünü Side: True (I get you)
1
point
How is it that simply anybody can write a website and acquire as widespread as this? Its not like youve said something incredibly spectacular –more like youve painted a reasonably picture over a difficulty that you simply recognize nothing concerning I don’t want to sound mean, here. but do you really suppose that you can escape with adding some pretty pictures and not really say anything? click me Side: True (I get you)
1
point
The reference you've got published is absolutely beneficial. The sites you have referred turned into pleasing. thank you for sharing. Sobha Crystal Meadows Side: True (I get you)
1
point
This is my first time visit here. From the tons of comments on your articles,I guess I am not only one having all the enjoyment right here! visit this site Side: True (I get you)
1
point
Wow, cool post. I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real hard work to make a great article... but I put things off too much and never seem to get started. Thanks though. visit this site Side: True (I get you)
1
point
All your hard work is much appreciated. Nobody can stop to admire you. Lots of appreciation. Foloke Light Therapy Masks Side: True (I get you)
1
point
Using https://www.signnow.com/features/ Side: True (I get you)
1
point
The article looks magnificent, but it would be beneficial if you can share more about the suchlike subjects in the future. Keep posting. deneme bonusu veren siteler Side: True (I get you)
1
point
The best thing about https://www.airslate.com/product/ Side: True (I get you)
1
point
1
point
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives indepth information. Thanks for this nice article. maine coon kittens for sale toronto Side: True (I get you)
|
1
point
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?)
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?)
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)
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)
1
point
|