I've noticed a lot of people cut and paste dictionary entries when making a point in a discussion.
Why do you do it?
How do dictionaries help you get the message across? Which ones do you use and why?
Do they make you sound more authoritative?
My impression is dictionaries are of little or no avail in philosophical discussions. It's easy to fall prey to one fallacy or another if you depend on them too much.
Pole
Why do you qoute dictionaries when making a point in a discussion?
by Pole 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pole
-
Scully
I don't think I've ever done it, but I can see how it might be useful in helping to define your point of view.
-
SixofNine
I think it is a valid thing to do, in that w/o definitions, discussions tend to be as meaningless as the words abused within. For instance, what JW would not benefit from a constant reminder of what the word "truth" really means?
-
Brummie
It can be valid, however it gets a bit silly when they quote a dictionary just to support their viewpoint as if somehow the dictionary wasnt allowing for any other veiw except for theirs, its a bit like JWs and the bible, they quote it to support themselves regardless of context.
Brummie
-
SixofNine
Brummie, it would seem to me that they would then be locked into that meaning, which would be a good thing. It wouldn't mean that there aren't other definitions, just that the person providing the definition is on record as using the word with that meaning in the context of that particular discussion. It certainly never hurts to know precisely what someone means; it saves alot of time.
-
Brummie
Yes Six, in that context I agree its a good thing. I was reffering to only one post I saw recently that quoted the dictionary definition of a word and therefore argued that there was no other meaning to the word.
Cant remember what the word was, *hum* maybe? naah, I got the wrong thread, it was something else.
Brummie
-
Englishman
It's useful when one is in a meretricious frame of mind.
Englishman.
-
Scully
Isn't it basically the same reason why legal documents such as contracts define the terms used within the document? Otherwise there could be a misunderstanding on the part of either party to the contract.
If a person is unwilling to agree to definitions of terms, it's possible to manipulate those terms to make them mean whatever the person wants them to mean, depending on the context.
Case in point: The Watchtower Society claims to be a Prophet?, but not in the same way the Bible defines the word prophet, because that would mean they would also be subject to the terms and conditions of being found out to be a False Prophet.
Love, Scully
-
Pole
Good points everyone. Here is my view:
A lot of people have this preconception that dictionaries contain authoritative definitions of words and the concepts they represent. What is often missed is that dictionaries are supposed to be a reflection of language use by their very nature. Language and human thinking cannot be governed by prescriptive dictionary assertions. If they were, "authoritative" dictionaries would stifle any intelectual progress.
Just imagine we have a dicussion on the concept of friendship and someone puts this concept in an interesting perspective. Then a dictionary-obsessed purist quotes a Webster definiton to show how much it differs from the "oficially approved" notion. Herein lies a fallacy if you see what I mean.
Of course you could echo Scully:
If a person is unwilling to agree to definitions of terms, it's possible to manipulate those terms to make them mean whatever the person wants them to mean, depending on the context.
But what I mean is that dictionary definitions should be used as a starting point, especially if we are interested in reaching an interesting conclusion and not just putting things in the same old little boxes.
If a person is unwilling to agree to definitions of terms, it's possible to manipulate those terms to make them mean whatever the person wants them to mean, depending on the context.
Yes, but I guess the best way out is to focus on the context and evidence and let these factors shape our final definitions. Legal language is perhaps not the best example, because it actually works normatively. Philosophical and belief related discussions do not.
So let's use dictionary definitions as a starting point and not as the final argument. What do you think?
Pole
-
Narkissos
I think sometimes it is pretty helpful to say: in this discussion I will use this word with this acceptation (whether it is found in a dictionary or not). Defining your working concepts within a limited area.
A dictionary definition per se has little influence on any debate (unless it is a debate on usage). It doesn't back up any particular side. I notice many people who do that also mix up etymology with semantics, or deny the fact of polysemy, as if some supposed "original meaning" of a word could forbid or overrule the variety of its actual meanings. For instance, a theist who would argue from the "first" definition of "responsible" ("liable to be called into account as being in charge or control: answerable [to: person, etc....]) that being an atheist is being ultimately irresponsible would commit a fallacy. It would just ignore the different and equally valid meanings of the word.