Sometimes conversations involve people using the same word differently. In the best case scenario, participants notice and choose a favorable provisional definition. Outside of conversations, people advocate for specific meanings to be adopted or not adopted more broadly. Below, I discuss reasonable and unreasonable ways people evaluate definitions, along with examples.
Good ways to evaluate a definition
Good reason
Why good?
Example
Practical applications
Some words’ and phrases’ definitions have practical applications
Scientists recommending that cancer 10–15 cm from the anal verge be defined as colon cancer rather than rectal cancer because it seems to respond to additional chemotherapy, which is also the case for colon cancer (Swets et al. 2017)
Scientists recommending that the definition of statistical significance be changed to p < 0.005 because it would help improve reproducibility (Benjamin et al. 2018)
Common usage
We use words to communicate with others; they have to understand us
An editor recommending that the term chips not be used to mean what Americans call French fries for an article with a global audience
A friend recommending that violence refer to acts causing physical damage for the duration of a conversation, since this is a common usage and is more intuitive than inclusion of mental damage
Standardization
It’s easier to communicate when there are commonly accepted definitions of words
Scientists recommending a more standardized definition of ecological terms like community in order to create more understanding (Stroud et al. 2015)
Factual correctness
Some words and phrases, especially scientific ones, are defined by the characteristics we’ve observed about them
Electricity changing in meaning from “The operations of a very subtil fluid, which appears to be diffused through most bodies, remarkable for the rapidity of its motion, and one of the most powerful agents in nature…” in 1828 (Webster) to “a fundamental form of e