How important are words in a conversation? Yes, I know, they are the substance of conversation, but how important are the meanings of those words?
Several times in this forum, what would otherwise be perfectly decent discussions degraded into petty arguments about the definition of a word or phrase and how it should be used ("free will" and "burden of proof" are two that I can think of off the top of my head, but there are others, including a myriad list of "religious" terms). Are specific definitions of certain terms absolutely required in a discussion, or is it better to consider the intent of the speaker?
I can think of one common word useage in common speech that defies the need for specific definition and argues in favor of intent. That word is "burn." Now, only gasses can actually burn, but when we light a campfire we say that the wood is burning. In a grill we say that the charcoal is burning. In actuality the wood and charcoal are quickly decomposing due to extreme heat and in doing so release gasses. These gasses in turn release more heat and a great deal of light. (If you doubt this just watch a flame for a while. . . I think you will see that it is a gas.) Now, it would be more specific to say all of this when we talk about wood "burning," but we don't have to, and doing so would only needlessly complicate the issue at hand for we all understand the intent of the word useage.
Now, I'm a guy who appreciates a good definition, but usually only when the definition is previously unknown or the intent is unclear or is in need of revising. So many words have multiple definitions listed in even the skimpiest of dictionaries. In the spirit of civilized discussion, I hope that everyone can consider the intent of the speaker/poster of an argument and the possibility that your "opponent" has a different definition for the same word or phrase you are using. Save the specifics for the professional journals.
Originally posted by thesonofsaullanguage is fundamentally context dependent, and the nonverbal aspects of a conversation often are the most important elements in the context
How important are words in a conversation? Yes, I know, they are the substance of conversation, but how important are the meanings of those words?
Several times in this forum, what would otherwise be perfectly decent discussions degraded into petty arguments about the definition of a word or phrase and how it should be used ("free will" and "burd ...[text shortened]... on for the same word or phrase you are using. Save the specifics for the professional journals.
two young folks can converse:
"you know, it's like, we were (Oh my God!)..."
"I know, that's so..."
"yea, and I mean whatever, well ..."
and communicate a great deal, although they will talk for 30 minutes to get out one sentence that you can decipher with a dictionary.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWhen I first became a Christian I was in a few discussions with some
How important are words in a conversation? Yes, I know, they are the substance of conversation, but how important are the meanings of those words?
Several times in this forum, what would otherwise be perfectly decent discussions degraded into petty arguments about the definition of a word or phrase and how it should be used ("free will" and "burd ...[text shortened]... on for the same word or phrase you are using. Save the specifics for the professional journals.
Mormons who came to my home to share. We spent hours using the
same words, and it wasn't until much later did I realize when I said
something like grace, for me it meant something quite different than
when they said it. You must understand what the other person is
saying even if you are using the same words it does not mean you
are saying the same thing.
Kelly
In debates definition is often integral. For example I am reading a book called Atheism-The case against god, by a guy called George Smith and in it he takes a lot of time to define the words atheism, theism and agnosticism for the reason that without such strict definitions, the arguements for each side become clouded in emotion rather than dealt with by reason. Allow me to do something I am normally against, but in such circumstances I think is ok (cut and paste something):
-- In "The Range of Reason", Maritain (a catholic philosopher) devotes more than one dozen pages to the varieties of atheism and since his classifications are widely used by other christian sources (such as the Catholic Encyclopedia), it is instructive to examine his approach. Maritain typifies the unfair treatment that atheism receives at the hands of theologians and religious philosophers. Although Maritain presumeably intends his classifications to be fair and impartial, they wreak of hispersonal dislike of atheism. Under the guise of categorizing, Maritain stacks the cards against atheism by assigning it to an inferior moral and psychological status. --
He then goes on to expand on this with a few examples, which I shall not go into but suffice to say he concludes that if one defines a word which is at the heart of the debate, one must define it correctly. To fail to do so is to make any arguement built on the emotional perception of a subject rather than a reasoned understanding of that subject. It is much easier to undermine a principle if one deals only with one's own understanding of that principle, an understanding that in the debating arena is often clouded, misguided, or assigned an inferior moral or psychological status.
If I, as an atheist believed that "happy" was defined as a state of emotion based upon an increased concentration of certain hormones following a beneficial stimulus, whilst another believed that "happy" was defined as a state of inner peace attained from knowing god, then we would be hard pressed to come to any agreement about whether or not "happy" can ever be exerienced by an atheist.
Another important issue here is that we lack a whole range of other communicative abilities on the internet. I cannot see your body language, nor hear the tone of voice you use, I cannot interupt you, nor use any other feedback processes to further tailor my arguement. So I must rely on empirical reasoning to ensure that what is both said and understood by both sides is the same. If I do not do this, ambiguity (normally resolved by body language etc.) sets in and extends the arguement, infuriates the participants and often changes the subject.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell said and rec'd
In debates definition is often integral. For example I am reading a book called Atheism-The case against god, by a guy called George Smith and in it he takes a lot of time to define the words atheism, theism and agnosticism for the reason that without such strict definitions, the arguements for each side become clouded in emotion rather than dealt with by ...[text shortened]... .) sets in and extends the arguement, infuriates the participants and often changes the subject.
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't disagree that precise definitions would be an aid to discussion; however, the attempt to create such definitions will often only lead to repititious argument. The only way to truly define a term at the heart of an argument is for both sides to come together, hash it out, and come to an agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I saw this happen once. . . and then monkeys flew out of my butt.
In debates definition is often integral. For example I am reading a book called Atheism-The case against god, by a guy called George Smith and in it he takes a lot of time to define the words atheism, theism and agnosticism for the reason that without such strict definitions, the arguements for each side become clouded in emotion rather than dealt with by ...[text shortened]... .) sets in and extends the arguement, infuriates the participants and often changes the subject.
I think it is up to the civilized debater, especially in a forum such as this, to realize what any given poster intends when he uses some word or another and treat it as if it has that definition for everyone. If you like, a disclaimer can be added that you see the word differently, but to decend into a battle of semantics and definition is just a waste of time and just makes everyone angry. If someone insists on arguing like this with me, I simply stop posting to the thread.
Ambiguity will occur no matter what we say about it. Therefore, it is up to us to treat what is said by a fellow forum poster by the definitions that they would use, not your own. This is the only way the reader can tell what the poster is saying. Those definitions can often be discerned by the context of the post and other things said by the poster. If something is unclear, if there is truly ambiguity that can't be resolved by the above techniques, don't attack the person for being wrong, but ask politely for clarification.
If you insist on clinging to your own definitions and apply them to the words of others, you are only adding to the madness and contributing to the decline of communication.
Of course, if the subject matter involves the definition of a word and how it should be used, as in the book you are reading, then the gloves come off. However, to add one more thought as it comes to me, in the case of a book there is little or no oppertunity for clarification. In the forum, there is plenty of oppertunity if we just act civilized and ask for it.
Originally posted by Squeeky BIt's an old joke, tell someone there's no definition of gullible in the dictionary, when they say "Oh really?" they prove themselves a fool. Of course there's a definition of dictionary in a dictionary, and to prove it here it is:
By this u mean?!?
dic·tion·ar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dksh-nr)
n. pl. dic·tion·ar·ies
1. A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.
2. A book listing the words of a language with translations into another language.
3. A book listing words or other linguistic items in a particular category or subject with specialized information about them: a medical dictionary.
4. Computer Science.
1. A list of words stored in machine-readable form for reference, as by spelling-checking software.
2. An electronic spelling checker.
[Medieval Latin dictinrium, from Latin dicti, dictin-, diction. See diction.]
Originally posted by StarrmanYou went through all that just to prove a point. You really are an argumentative git. Thankyou anyway, I'm sure that may come in handy in june, I knew there was something missing from my A* performance in English
[b]It's an old joke, tell someone there's no definition of gullible in the dictionary, when they say "Oh really?" they prove themselves a fool. Of course there's a definition of dictionary in a dictionary, and to prove it here it is:
Originally posted by StarrmanYou mean when they say "Oh really" and then grab a dictionary to look it up. :-) Then you ask them if there is a picture of them in there! I've actually done that to people. It's hilarious.
It's an old joke, tell someone there's no definition of gullible in the dictionary, when they say "Oh really?" they prove themselves a fool. Of course there's a definition of dictionary in a dictionary, and to prove it here it is:
dic·tion·ar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dksh-nr)
n. pl. dic·tion·ar·ies
1. A reference book containing an al ...[text shortened]... ling checker.
[Medieval Latin dictinrium, from Latin dicti, dictin-, diction. See diction.]
Originally posted by thesonofsaulNughu Yitzo! Humhe dugums brurttt!
How important are words in a conversation? Yes, I know, they are the substance of conversation, but how important are the meanings of those words?
Several times in this forum, what would otherwise be perfectly decent discussions degraded into petty arguments about the definition of a word or phrase and how it should be used ("free will" and "burd ...[text shortened]... on for the same word or phrase you are using. Save the specifics for the professional journals.
Burmqwi estyese. Vooom!
Definition is the foundation of reasonable debate. The entirety of mathematics is nothing but a handful of rules of logic operating on a very large set of precise definitions. To attempt to argue or prove a point in a debate, one should attempt to mimic the form of mathematical proof to some extent, but this cannot be carried out without establishing definitions.