You can then extensionally define “renate” as “has a spinal column”
But what “renate” means intensionally has to do with kidneys, not spines.
I don’t think this has been covered here yet, so for those not familiar with these two terms: inferring something extensionally means you infer something based on the set in which an object belongs to. Inferring something intensionally means you infer something based on the actual properties of the object.
Wikipedia formulates these as
An extensional definition of a concept or term formulates its meaning by specifying its extension, that is, every object that falls under the definition of the concept or term in question.
For example, an extensional definition of the term “nation of the world” might be given by listing all of the nations of the world, or by giving some other means of recognizing the members of the corresponding class.*
and
an intensional definition gives the meaning of a term by specifying all the properties required to come to that definition, that is, the necessary and sufficient conditions for belonging to the set being defined.
For example, an intensional definition of “bachelor” is “unmarried man.” Being an unmarried man is an essential property of something referred to as a bachelor. It is a necessary condition: one cannot be a bachelor without being an unmarried man. It is also a sufficient condition: any unmarried man is a bachelor
Rule of thumb in case you get forget which is which: EXTEnsion refers to “external” properties, like the group you happen to belong into, while INTEnsion refers to internal properties.
Are extensional and intensional definitions related to outside views and inside views? I suppose extensional definitions and outside view are about drawing conclusions from a class of things, while the intensional and inside use specific details more unique to the thing in question.
It seems to me that they are at least somewhat related. Recently, I’ve been wondering to which degree extensional/intensional definitions, the outside/inside view and the near/far view might be different ways of looking at the same two modes of reasoning.
(I had a longer post of it in mind, and thought I had come up with something important, but now I’ve forgotten what the important part of it was. :-( )
I don’t think this has been covered here yet, so for those not familiar with these two terms: inferring something extensionally means you infer something based on the set in which an object belongs to. Inferring something intensionally means you infer something based on the actual properties of the object.
Wikipedia formulates these as
and
Rule of thumb in case you get forget which is which: EXTEnsion refers to “external” properties, like the group you happen to belong into, while INTEnsion refers to internal properties.
It was covered in Extensions and Intensions.
You’re right, I’d forgotten about that.
Are extensional and intensional definitions related to outside views and inside views? I suppose extensional definitions and outside view are about drawing conclusions from a class of things, while the intensional and inside use specific details more unique to the thing in question.
It seems to me that they are at least somewhat related. Recently, I’ve been wondering to which degree extensional/intensional definitions, the outside/inside view and the near/far view might be different ways of looking at the same two modes of reasoning.
(I had a longer post of it in mind, and thought I had come up with something important, but now I’ve forgotten what the important part of it was. :-( )