|Vladimir_Nesov||v1.4.0Dec 4th 2009||(+47/-33)|
|Zack_M_Davis||v1.3.0Nov 18th 2009||(+834/-59) writing|
|Zack_M_Davis||v1.2.0Nov 17th 2009||(+60) See also|
|Zack_M_Davis||v1.1.0Nov 17th 2009||(-42) byline removal|
|Vladimir_Nesov||v1.0.0Jul 19th 2009||(+158) stub|
Reality already is what it is; as aspiring rationalists, our task in thought and speech is to map it. You can't coerce reality by
defining a word in a particular way. The fact that you've defined a word in a particular way can't teach you anything about the world, only observations can. Therefore arguing by definition is futile. Worse still, the dictionary definition of a word doesn't even begin to capture the rich cognitive content that actually constitutes its meaning; the dictionary, defining a word in terms of other words, can only serve as a helpful pointer to what most people mean when they use a word. Better to keep the focus on the facts of the matter and trying to understand what your interlocutor is trying to communicate, then to get lost in a pointless discussion of definitions, bearing nothing.