Dictionary definitions do not constitute an argument (or do they?)

[shadow_Fox81]

ever in a healthy discussion then the balance tips in your favour because your in good form, then "BAM" the guy copy pastes a dictionary definition in your face. you can image their smug face full of self worth "argue around that you smart ass" they will say triumphantly.

is it right to do this, i think so becuase it shows a lack of individual thought and a shallow understanding of eccoteric concepts.

but on the same note i can't really fault it because facts are the refuge of some very intelligent people. Is a definition any different than a fact, both claim absolute and unqestionable truth.

am i wrong to think definitions are a shallow arguement.

(and be smartasses and copy paste definitions of fact and definition i'm sure it will be funny to someone)

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I guess it depends on if it is done to clarify some point in a respectful way to further the discussion (or at LEAST they should intend that, sometimes things go awry) then fine. More often though it is done just to give the argument a shove in the direction they favor, and that's a rude use of the facts in a discussion offline as well as on.

Oh, and as far as strength of argument goes - I'd say that definitions should be considered more factual than they generally are online. Language is pretty well evolved alongside our conceptual understanding of our world through a cultural filter. What a word means is pretty important - but nailing people for misusing something by accident is not what I'm endorsing here.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

It is the end-all fact that bends you over a barrel, as long as it's from a reputable dictionary like Webster's.

a wise man once said that which is written and that which is spoken are entirely different planes altogether.

if i skew definitions for personal enterpretations or creative licsense does that not show greater under standing than blindly accepting what you were told. does it matter how reputable the source if the application is dimwitted.

(given i study art and literature and that methodology wouldn't fly in science , but thats the methodology that made Newton or Copernicus say "hey wait what if")

 

[FalloutJack]

ever in a healthy discussion then the balance tips in your favour because your in good form, then "BAM" the guy copy pastes a dictionary definition in your face. you can image their smug face full of self worth "argue around that you smart ass" they will say triumphantly.

is it right to do this, i think so becuase it shows a lack of individual thought and a shallow understanding of eccoteric concepts.

but on the same note i can't really fault it because facts are the refuge of some very intelligent people. Is a definition any different than a fact, both claim absolute and unqestionable truth.

am i wrong to think definitions are a shallow arguement.

(and be smartasses and copy paste definitions of fact and definition i'm sure it will be funny to someone)

No no no no... Definition-use isn't a shallow argument. It's accepted knowledge. People who are smug about it are shallow. And I, being of sound, mind, and depthy...may in fact quote something like that to end an otherwise tedious argument for the sake of our sanity. That would not be smug or wrong, but practically an act of heroism.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

[/quote]

And I, being of sound, mind, and depthy...may in fact quote something like that to end an otherwise tedious argument for the sake of our sanity. That would not be smug or wrong, but practically an act of heroism.[/quote]

when that time comes you will be thanked for your heroism (perhaps flowers)

but i'm about questioning the logic behind "the sky is blue because lenghty science stuff" but to me that did nothing but tell me how its blue rather than why. It seems uninspired and not very constructive to fling facts about in a subjective frame of thought. I doubt most people accept the majority of definitions out there.

(your heroism will definately be needed before this thread is out)

 

[Hoplon]

And I, being of sound, mind, and depthy...may in fact quote something like that to end an otherwise tedious argument for the sake of our sanity. That would not be smug or wrong, but practically an act of heroism.

when that time comes you will be thanked for your heroism (perhaps flowers)

but i'm about questioning the logic behind "the sky is blue because lenghty science stuff" but to me that did nothing but tell me how its blue rather than why. It seems uninspired and not very constructive to fling facts about in a subjective frame of thought. I doubt most people accept the majority of definitions out there.

(your heroism will definitely be needed before this thread is out)

No see it does tell you why it is blue, What it doesn't tell you is why you think of that colour as blue or even why you perceive colours at all.

The point of technical answers is that they aren't subjective and open to interpretation, they are as close to an absolute answer as can be obtained so yes the do "win" the argument in as much as they have a factual basis of their version of events.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I use dictionary definitions when trying to help define something in my point. And I use the WHOLE dictionary definition when I do so. I do it when it appears someone doesn't understand what a word I am using means. Rather than give an interpretation of what it means I give them the actual definition and then tell them my interpretation of it. Depending on the argument sometimes it does end it because then the person goes "oh. since you put it that way I can see your point" and then stops arguing with me. Personally I hate arguing over the internet. Arguing over the internet is like winning in the special olympics. No one really cares at the end of the day except for you(person who is arguing).

 

[SckizoBoy]

but i'm about questioning the logic behind "the sky is blue because lenghty science stuff" but to me that did nothing but tell me how its blue rather than why. It seems uninspired and not very constructive to fling facts about in a subjective frame of thought. I doubt most people accept the majority of definitions out there.

That's not the best kind of question to distinguish between 'how' and 'why'. That is an arbitrary existence/fact for which 'how' and 'why' are both the same. However, for arguments that make this distinction there has to be some semblance of subjective motivation.

First thing that comes to mind: conscription. How is it a bad thing? Impracticality in times of peace. Why is it a bad thing? Moral/ethical repugnance.

Perhaps not the best example, but it sort of illustrates my point. (Apologies if, somehow, I've misunderstood your point.)

 

[StriderShinryu]

I would honestly say it depends on the point being debated but, by and large, it's not a bad thing to do. Some things just aren't really debatable, and many times people in a debate will be basing their entire argument on something that is factually wrong.

Of course, even in a proper debate where both sides actually know what they are talking about, a dictionary definition can still be useful. Even the most brilliant debaters will get no where fast if they are basing their arguments on two different meanings for the same word or concept, even if neither of them is technically wrong. It can simply be a way for all sides to get on the same page.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

The point of technical answers is that they aren't subjective and open to interpretation, they are as close to an absolute answer as can be obtained so yes the do "win" the argument in as much as they have a factual basis of their version of events.

this next point may use a lot of specific Historgraphical terminology so i apologise.

post modern historical study aknowledges that there is no absolute answer or truth, only consdiered enterpretations of sources(sources like the dictionary).This idea of absolute seems to stem from Von Rankean (Prussian, German) theoretical applicatiion of the incoruptable fact to ideas. you can take the fact "waterloo was a battle between english comanded forces and french loyalists to napoleon" but that fact isn't absolute because you can apply thought to it. if you read that and accept it as absolute that is a shallow approach to debbate.

Dictionary definitions are no different to historical facts that are assumed absolute, if i'm understanding a word like "Art" after studying it for decades and some one throws the dictionary at me that seems like an invalid argument. iT is no different to someone who studied Waterloo from every discernable angle having Andrew Roberston's Wellington and Napoleon at them.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

That's not the best kind of question to distinguish between 'how' and 'why'. That is an arbitrary existence/fact for which 'how' and 'why' are both the same. However, for arguments that make this distinction there has to be some semblance of subjective motivation.

First thing that comes to mind: conscription. How is it a bad thing? Impracticality in times of peace. Why is it a bad thing? Moral/ethical repugnance.

Perhaps not the best example, but it sort of illustrates my point. (Apologies if, somehow, I've misunderstood your point.)

perhaps it is an illconcieved question but it is a good one to set apart the Dictionaryians and the Scholars. because it sets apart those who accept the sky is blue because "SCIENCE!" and those who wonder about the colour itself being there. Thats the diiference between an engineer and a researcher. its the difference between accepting the sun was a flaming chariot and finding out what it might really be.
i think its unsurpasseed in that because how is the engineers perogative why is the researchers.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

Hell yes. If you're arguing about something, shouldn't one know what it is? Dictionary definitions are one of the very few facts used in internet arguments, it's not open for debate, (unless you went to Oxford with a bigass petition or something), it's factual, and I don't know why OP has to relate that to being smug.

every thing is open for debate.

a definition for concepts constitutes the conflict for the majority of threads i see. (patriotism, art, game, war, crime, evil, racism)
throwing a definition at some one is childish in most cases.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well it really depends what you're arguing about. If it's over the definition of a word then yeah, you're fucked. You can't argue with Oxford. Except pheonix. Phoenix? What the hell is that? Pheonix. That makes sense.

 

[TheIronRuler]

ever in a healthy discussion then the balance tips in your favour because your in good form, then "BAM" the guy copy pastes a dictionary definition in your face. you can image their smug face full of self worth "argue around that you smart ass" they will say triumphantly.

is it right to do this, i think so becuase it shows a lack of individual thought and a shallow understanding of eccoteric concepts.

but on the same note i can't really fault it because facts are the refuge of some very intelligent people. Is a definition any different than a fact, both claim absolute and unqestionable truth.

am i wrong to think definitions are a shallow arguement.

(and be smartasses and copy paste definitions of fact and definition i'm sure it will be funny to someone)

Sometimes people associate words with wrong definitions not because of ignorance but because they only heard it in that context. For example, you have the word "Chauvinism" or "Chauvinist".
People commonly associate it with sexism, specifically when a man is 'sexist' towards a woman (does 'sexism' sound like a made-up word that got approved only because it was used constantly?). The definition is much wider and different than the commonly used one.
The Oxford dictionary difinition of it, Edition 3 2003 (Printed editions are so damn expensive. I might consider replacing it in a year or two) :
noun 1. the belief that your country is better than all others
2. (also male 'chauvinism') the belief that men are better than women.
.
Some definitions help your case, but sometimes the argument itself is about the very definition of a word or ideology. You can use a historian definition, but the person sitting on the other side of the monitor sees that word in his eyes, his world-view and no amount of quoting a dictionary would change his mind. Therefore one should engage in a coversation about the nature of the word and sometimes even its origins, because like I have shown earlier some words receive definitions after they are created, have their definition change (Like the word "******", but I'm not going to type that since it's damn long).

 

[Hoplon]

This next point may use a lot of specific Historgraphical terminology so i apologise.

post modern historical study acknowledges that there is no absolute answer or truth, only considered interpretations of sources(sources like the dictionary). This idea of absolute seems to stem from Von Rankean (Prussian, German) theoretical application of the incorruptible fact to ideas. you can take the fact "waterloo was a battle between English commanded forces and French loyalists to Napoleon" but that fact isn't absolute because you can apply thought to it. if you read that and accept it as absolute that is a shallow approach to debate.

Dictionary definitions are no different to historical facts that are assumed absolute, if I'm understanding a word like "Art" after studying it for decades and some one throws the dictionary at me that seems like an invalid argument. It is no different to someone who studied Waterloo from every discernible angle having Andrew Roberston's Wellington and Napoleon at them.

Except dictionary's don't do that, Language as it stands is an agreed construct to allow communication, the base reference to what a word means would be the dictionary. With out that shared basis you cannot communicate with others.

the nuance of what you consider art is in the end nothing to do with the usage of the word art. What some one has tried to do and what you consider the result does not art meaning the same thing.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

Except dictionary's don't do that, Language as it stands is an agreed construct to allow communication, the base reference to what a word means would be the dictionary. With out that shared basis you cannot communicate with others.

the nuance of what you consider art is in the end nothing to do with the usage of the word art. What some one has tried to do and what you consider the result does not art meaning the same thing.

so dictionaries have never genericized complex ideas stretching beyond the realms of language, then compacted them into shadows of there possible enterpretations and meanings. (like Vonrankean history books)

i get they create a shared foutain of rudimentary understanding but the opperative words is rudimentary.i feel dictionary definitions have no place in discussions as a supreme incoruptable fact.

but regardless of my beliefs it is definately childish to jump to another site copy some one elses thoughts and claim it as your own regardless of wether it has dictionary origins or otherwise.