Disputing Definitions

ech...

"Abortion is murder because it's evil to kill a poor defenseless baby."

I am so sick of arguing with people who's definition of the issue constitutes 99% of their argument, and who aren't willing to acknowledge that their definition needs consensus before their point is even meaningful let alone valid.

Like you say - most of the time an argument is completely settled once/if everyone agrees one the terms being used.

Suppose I order a blegg from a mail-order catalog. As it turns out, the object I received is blue and is furry, but it is cube-shaped, does not glow in the dark, and contains neither vanadium nor palladium. I am disappointed and attempt to return the object, claiming that it is not, in fact, a blegg. The seller refuses to give me a refund or exchange the object for another. Annoyed, I decide to take the seller to court.

Would I win the lawsuit?

(This is why arguments over definitions have real-world consequences.)

Using different words to describe the same thing can produce a dispute where there is none, yes. But people also tend to use the same word to refer to totally different things, sometimes as a means of artificially avoiding conflict. Equivocation can be a powerful teaching tool and rhetorical device, but more often it serves as a way to lie plausibly, both to others and to oneself.

Meaningful communication is possible only when people are discussing the same ideas, and ensuring that everyone involved maps the same concepts onto the same words is necessary to bring that about.

Without concern for the proper use of words, language becomes useless.

Would I win the lawsuit? This is why arguments over definitions have real-world consequences.

Technically, that's not so much an argument over a definition, as an argument over cognitive history: The seller's expectation of your expectation of what you would get in the mail; and the application of the law to those expectations.

I did mention that the remedy is not universal. If people have already taken actions, based on their previous communications, then the consequences are already set in motion - you can't go back in time and use the remedy.

Abortion is murder because it's evil to kill a poor defenseless baby.

Another time you can't just generate new words is when a category boundary like "person" or "human" or "baby" makes a direct appearance in your utility function.

People can agree about all the facts but argue about what the word means, which question is an empirical one. People don't know what their criteria are for something being a sound, and can only offer aspects that seem to count for it or against it. You have to try the argument and see if you can see it that way.

Perhaps in the end you can bring out what a sound is.

See Cavell on chairs, op cit. and derivatively Wittgenstein.

The people arguing are not making a mistake; the cognitive scientist is.

Without concern for the proper use of words, language becomes useless.

A valid point, as long as you're careful that language work for you and not vice versa. The moment you find the expression of your concept being stifled by grammar or vocabulary or tradition, find another way. Invent a new word; define it using comparison, differentiation, pictures, hand signals, noises. Language should bend to incorporate reality; otherwise the tail is wagging the dog. Language has enormous power to make our world, hence the sort of typical argument Eliezer discusses. But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is our tool, and any rules should be enabling rather than restrictive - clarity of communication is the goal.

The moment you find the expression of your concept being stifled by grammar or vocabulary or tradition, find another way.

No. First, you must check to confirm that your concept is potentially expressible. Some 'concepts' are self-contradictory and cannot be further talked about for that reason. There is nothing more than can be said about "the encounter of an immovable object with an irresistible force" beyond that it is invalid. Trying to find another way either leads to the eventual recognition that nothing else can be expressed, or (more likely) ends in our using language as a screen to prevent the incompatibility from entering our awareness.

Eliezer,

I would just like to tell you I very much enjoyed this post. I love debate but find they often go awry in ways such as above. More like this. Or, can you post links to others like this from before?

...the encounter of an immovable object with an irresistible force...

Reread me Caledonian - this is a problem with logic; not a problem with language. You had no problem expressing it verbally, so it's not the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Language (systems) can never be precise, only as precise as possible. At its best it is about the least misunderstanding; misunderstanding being inherent. Approximation comes into my mind. It is about agreements (also the breaking of these) and closed circuit situations. At its best it is about more or less successful feedback loops.

You had no problem expressing it verbally

1) There are still people who insist that if we can talk about it, it must be real.

2) Logic is just language used very, very precisely. Reinventing language in an attempt to make one's point may be useful, even necessary, but it tends to be a means to disguise contradictions in logic by hiding them within unfamiliar terms and usages.

But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is our tool, and any rules should be enabling rather than restrictive

Language is enabling only because it is restrictive. Remove the restrictions and you lose the meaning. Logic is a tool that we cannot command, only obey.

That's easy for you to say.

Eliezer said that another time you can't just generate new words is when a category boundary like "person" or "human" or "baby" makes a direct appearance in your utility function.

Which gently suggests that when defining a utility function that might remain in force for billions of years, one should prefer functions that do not have category boundaries.

I would be happy to exhibit functions of that sort that have the property that even after an explosion of engineered intelligence, the humans probably retain enough expected utility to keep them flourishing and protected from exploitation although they probably do not retain enough expected utility to cause the majority of the future light cone's space, time, matter, free energy and other resources to be devoted to them.

"Pickleplumber" is now my favourite swearword.

If only everybody would search for more clarity in communication.

I think in the words I speak in to create logic in my mind. So not only does using a words with fuzzy definitions, exaggerating or twisting sentences affect my ability to communicate clearly, it affects my ability to think clearly.

Barry and Albert could have avoided argument if they saw being proven wrong as something that should be celebrated because their mind has been raised to a new level of understanding. Rather than a defeat. Then their focus would have been on understanding each other rather than defending their position.

So is this what that dispute was? I always thought it was more of a solipsism thing, but that doesn't make much sense because then the question should be "Does the tree actually fall, or is it up when you first see it, down later on, and nonexistent in between?"

One way to get around the argument on semantics would be to replace "sound" by its definition.

...

Albert: "Hah! Definition 2c in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: Mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air).'"

Barry: "Hah! Definition 2b in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: The sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.'"

Albert: "Since we cannot agree on the definition of sound and a third party might be confused if he listened to us, can you reformulate your question, replacing the word sound by its definition."

Barry: "OK. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it cause anyone to have the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing?"

Albert: "No."

Well-done definition debates are still possible. But they're about the comparative usefulness of conceptualizing X in a certain way Y as opposed to a different way Z, and vice versa. Well done definitional debates can actually be really interesting though, although they don't crop up too much.

Here's an alternative guide to words:

'' Component display theory M. D. Merrill’s Component Display Theory (CDT) is a cognitive matrix that focuses on the interaction between two dimensions: the level of performance expected from the learner and the types of content of the material to be learned. Merrill classifies a learner’s level of performance as: find, use, remember, and material content as: facts, concepts, procedures, and principles. The theory also calls upon four primary presentation forms and several other secondary presentation forms. The primary presentation forms include: rules, examples, recall, and practice. Secondary presentation forms include: prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. A complete lesson includes a combination of primary and secondary presentation forms, but the most effective combination varies from learner to learner and also from concept to concept. Another significant aspect of the CDT model is that it allows for the learner to control the instructional strategies used and adapt them to meet his or her own learning style and preference. A major goal of this model was to reduce three common errors in concept formation: over-generalization, under-generalization and misconception.''

On the one hand I understand many reasons for words. What words are for. You notice something, someone names it for you, you look up the word, you connect it to a definition, and voila, you have gained knowledge. Because you know at least some of it´s properties and perhaps also common purposes, from the defintion.

On the other hand I understand why arguing over defintions obviously is pointless in above mentioned example and the examples from How an Algorithm Feels From Inside.

Here is my problem. I have never bothered arguing definitions for the sake of it. I use them in a meaningful context. Or so I THINK. Could someone give me some more every day examples of where this may not be the case? If I can connect this to something more concrete (something I can relate to), I might be able to really understand the issue.

ds

So, all arguments which do not make different predictions are extensionally equal, but are not intensional. From the Wikipedia page:

Consider the two functions f and g mapping from and to natural numbers, defined as follows:

• To find f(n), first add 5 to n, then multiply by 2.

• To find g(n), first multiply n by 2, then add 10.

These functions are extensionally equal; given the same input, both functions always produce the same value. But the definitions of the functions are not equal, and in that intensional sense the functions are not the same.

See also: Essentially contested concept

If albert said he possesed an unwatched video of the tree falling and then made a bet with barry about whether the video will have the sound I think it is unlikely Barry would bet on a silent video, even hypothetically.

I believe some of what is described here was called "philosophical nonsense" by Rudolph Carnap:

"According to Carnap, philosophical propositions are statements about the language of science; they aren’t true or false, but merely consist of definitions and conventions about the use of certain concepts"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap#Philosophical_work

"nonsense results from the use of language outside the limits of a language-game or linguistic framework; the task of the critic of philosophy is to point out when and how philosophers have transgressed the limits of their linguistic system"

-- https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203449400/chapters/10.4324/9780203449400-18

Although the framing/context here is slightly different; Argument from philosophical nonsense?