[SEQ RERUN] Disputing Definitions
Today’s post, Disputing Definitions was originally published on 12 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
You allow an argument to slide into being about definitions, even though it isn’t what you originally wanted to argue about. If, before a dispute started about whether a tree falling in a deserted forest makes a “sound”, you asked the two soon-to-be arguers whether they thought a “sound” should be defined as “acoustic vibrations” or “auditory experiences”, they’d probably tell you to flip a coin. Only after the argument starts does the definition of a word become politically charged.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we’ll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky’s old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was How An Algorithm Feels From Inside, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day’s sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
The problem with this post is that it fails to mention the legitimate reasons why definitions may be important:
definitions affect perceived simplicity when using Occam’s razor.
definitions might correspond to concepts for which there are terms in your utility function.
widely accepted definitions frequently wind up serving as Schelling point.
Since the RSS feed is no longer working (at least for me), I made this feed instead using Yahoo Pipes: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_id=ebd0ed84cb4d00a5c46082e529d27c26&_render=rss
Slightly dangerous example...
I get this sense when intelligent people argue about when human life begins. I don’t think there are too many people who contest what the various stages of pregnancy look like, but there is an awful lot of arguing about the definition of ‘life’ and ‘person’.
Yes. And mostly that debate is a proxy for “which, if any abortions, are immoral for the reasons that homicide is immoral”. And everybody involved understands that’s the substantive issue.