Defining terms on RF

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion that I express, but I have seen where a number of people on RF have expressed disappointment that so much focus of RF debates comes down to defining terms. Honestly and realistically speaking, about 30% of the debate I see comes down to defining terms.

I actually, personally, consider defining terms to be half the battle, though. It kind of shows whether you're building on existing ideas, or trying to re-invent the wheel. And I actually think if you're going to re-invent the wheel, that you need a particularly strong and solid case (I'm talking like a page or two talking the idea, although, I'd say one should probably be careful to follow the rules when doing so, too), whereas if you're building on an existing foundation, you can just say "I believe X from Y" and suffice with a shorter explanation afterwards.

I have also heard people have concerns that some might be making people define terms to avoid regular debate entirely too, which I myself consider impractical, so I could sympathize there (if that's happening.)

Another idea I have, though, is that maybe there's a teensy bit too much focus on defining terms too, despite my broad support of it. It's like, it also goes so far, that people are misunderstanding the phrase "Define your terms" to mean "define your terminology", when I consider the phrase to mean, "Define your terms of debate." But I actually might be incorrect myself in this instance, as a lot of the internet, upon a quick web search, think it means "Define your terminology".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Before I comment, I'll need to know what definition you're using for the term "defining."

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Before I comment, I'll need to know what definition you're using for the term "defining."

Do you want the definition from the Ox dictionary or from the William-Pudding edition 2?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you want the definition from the Ox dictionary or from the William-Pudding edition 2?

Can we use VISUWORDS?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Can we use VISUWORDS?

No, and you're not changing my mind.

*Googles*

Wait, yes we can.

 

[Viker]

No, and you're not changing my mind.

*Googles*

View attachment 80588

Wait, yes we can.

I still don't like it.

 

[Viker]

I want terms and words to mean what I want them to mean, just like everyone else!

 

[LuisDantas]

It is certainly frustrating that so much energy is spent (repeatedly) on discussing terminology. There is a lot of revisitation of the same ambiguities and misused words and expressions.

Pragmatically, much of it comes from various movements of varying levels of formality and organization that promote certain meanings out of convenience. While that remains, so will the mismatches of intended and understood meanings.

There isn't a lot that can be done about that without significant efforts at education of some form.

In the context of RF, we might perhaps consider establishing some sort of repository of premises for debate on a individual thread level with a section on mutually accepted terminology and point out when we feel that there is deviation from that acceptance. Not necessarily to stop the conversation, but perhaps to discuss whether the premises might be improved, and how.

I think that it might be particularly worthwhile to have such premise cards available for very controversial themes such as Israel-Palestine relations, the meaning and role of secularism, and what qualifies as a religion and why.

I don't expect it to happen, but I suspect that Islam-oriented premise cards might potentially be very enlightening and split and multiply into various specific forms. Particularly if discussion of peripheral beliefs such as Izmaili and Druze is ever achieved here - which, granted, is quite the longshot. We have hardly achieved clear exposition of what Ahmadiyya Islam is.

Similarly exciting but perhaps even less likely would be premise ecosystems for discussion of evolution vs creationism, as well as another for the whole set of non-theistic beliefs. The main obstacle here is that most of the interested people have convinced themselves that there is no need to learn much more.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion that I express, but I have seen where a number of people on RF have expressed disappointment that so much focus of RF debates comes down to defining terms. Honestly and realistically speaking, about 30% of the debate I see comes down to defining terms.

I actually, personally, consider defining terms to be half the battle, though. It kind of shows whether you're building on existing ideas, or trying to re-invent the wheel. And I actually think if you're going to re-invent the wheel, that you need a particularly strong and solid case (I'm talking like a page or two talking the idea, although, I'd say one should probably be careful to follow the rules when doing so, too), whereas if you're building on an existing foundation, you can just say "I believe X from Y" and suffice with a shorter explanation afterwards.

I have also heard people have concerns that some might be making people define terms to avoid regular debate entirely too, which I myself consider impractical, so I could sympathize there (if that's happening.)

Another idea I have, though, is that maybe there's a teensy bit too much focus on defining terms too, despite my broad support of it. It's like, it also goes so far, that people are misunderstanding the phrase "Define your terms" to mean "define your terminology", when I consider the phrase to mean, "Define your terms of debate." But I actually might be incorrect myself in this instance, as a lot of the internet, upon a quick web search, think it means "Define your terminology".

Definitions themselves can be tricky, since words often have multiple meanings and can be used in different contexts. However, getting too bogged down in definitions and semantics can be distractive and derail a discussion.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion that I express, but I have seen where a number of people on RF have expressed disappointment that so much focus of RF debates comes down to defining terms. Honestly and realistically speaking, about 30% of the debate I see comes down to defining terms.

I actually, personally, consider defining terms to be half the battle, though. It kind of shows whether you're building on existing ideas, or trying to re-invent the wheel. And I actually think if you're going to re-invent the wheel, that you need a particularly strong and solid case (I'm talking like a page or two talking the idea, although, I'd say one should probably be careful to follow the rules when doing so, too), whereas if you're building on an existing foundation, you can just say "I believe X from Y" and suffice with a shorter explanation afterwards.

I have also heard people have concerns that some might be making people define terms to avoid regular debate entirely too, which I myself consider impractical, so I could sympathize there (if that's happening.)

Another idea I have, though, is that maybe there's a teensy bit too much focus on defining terms too, despite my broad support of it. It's like, it also goes so far, that people are misunderstanding the phrase "Define your terms" to mean "define your terminology", when I consider the phrase to mean, "Define your terms of debate." But I actually might be incorrect myself in this instance, as a lot of the internet, upon a quick web search, think it means "Define your terminology".

Establishing definitions is the most fundamental aspect of interpersonal communications. If I do not know what you are meaning, by a word or a phrase, the conversation is going nowhere and we are both wasting our time.

Another aspect of this is we all lead very busy lives and cannot possibly be aware of everything happening in the world, (aside from @Debater Slayer he is a marvel...) I simply do not have time to investigate every topic and quite often I'm not all that interested in a given topic.

We are also at the mercy of whatever news feeds we tend to frequent and will be influences by the media spin machine.

Also, anyone can use Google, but not too many use Google Scholar, but short of using Google Scholar, one should be careful with Google as the results can be a mixed back of garbage.

Emotional reasoning, and I am guilty of this, is a very hard thing to break. People using emotional reasoning may not be aware they are even employing it as one gets swept up in the passion.

One thing I do thank RF for is helping me to expand my language on difficult topics. I remain unconvinced in a number of areas but at least, now, I have a clearer understanding of the issues at hand. Little steps. Little steps or as we say in 12-Step "Progress, not perfection".

I don't know if this answers you questions, but that how this hits me at 6:23 am. (I've only been up for an hour.)

 

[blü 2]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion that I express, but I have seen where a number of people on RF have expressed disappointment that so much focus of RF debates comes down to defining terms. Honestly and realistically speaking, about 30% of the debate I see comes down to defining terms.

I actually, personally, consider defining terms to be half the battle, though. It kind of shows whether you're building on existing ideas, or trying to re-invent the wheel. And I actually think if you're going to re-invent the wheel, that you need a particularly strong and solid case (I'm talking like a page or two talking the idea, although, I'd say one should probably be careful to follow the rules when doing so, too), whereas if you're building on an existing foundation, you can just say "I believe X from Y" and suffice with a shorter explanation afterwards.

I have also heard people have concerns that some might be making people define terms to avoid regular debate entirely too, which I myself consider impractical, so I could sympathize there (if that's happening.)

Another idea I have, though, is that maybe there's a teensy bit too much focus on defining terms too, despite my broad support of it. It's like, it also goes so far, that people are misunderstanding the phrase "Define your terms" to mean "define your terminology", when I consider the phrase to mean, "Define your terms of debate." But I actually might be incorrect myself in this instance, as a lot of the internet, upon a quick web search, think it means "Define your terminology".

What do you mean when you say "God"? "Trinity"? "Spirit"? "Mind"? Consciousness"? "Reality" (and "Real")? "Truth"? "Soul"? ... and more.

If X doesn't have a clear idea of what he or she means when using those words, the result is often incoherent or trivial.

My own position is derived from the observation that there's no definition of "God" appropriate to a real entity, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not. God, I find, is instead only defined in imaginary terms like omnipotent, infinite &c &c.

Good, clearly articulated definitions of relevant terms are often enough essential before the discussion can make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sometimes it is necessary. People sometimes us a strange or even personal meaning of a word when trying to debate. A demand that one defines one's terms properly usually arises when one side is not being honest. We cannot accuse others of lying here but we can demand that people use reasonable or proper definitions of terms.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Another aspect of this is we all lead very busy lives and cannot possibly be aware of everything happening in the world, (aside from @Debater Slayer he is a marvel...)

Sarcasm?

 

[YmirGF]

Sarcasm?

I do think quite highly of you. Try to keep that in mind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I do think quite highly of you. Try to keep that in mind.

Thanks! I'm flattered. I just think of myself as a work in progress in terms of knowledge (which I think should be the case unless one ossifies and stops learning at some point in their life), so I wouldn't say I'm nearly aware of everything happening in the world.

I try my best, though.

 

[Secret Chief]

Before I comment, I'll need to know what definition you're using for the term "defining."

What do you mean by "comment" ?

 

[Secret Chief]

Can we use VISUWORDS?

No.

 

[LuisDantas]

Following up on my previous post, I have decided to write my first draft of my own debate parameters sheet.

It is available right now at https://dantas.com/debate_parameters/luisdantas.htm in case anyone feels like looking at it.