Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • jobermark: "a scene in Lakatos's Proofs and Refutations [...] "Oh, I guess we need to add the fact [...]"" -- This supposed "need" doesn't seem to arise from the (initial) definition itself, nor from any or all imaginable examples/instances (which may be expressed by the available terminology) themselves but ... from some extraneous "what we want" (to use Rex Kerr's phrase). Unfortunately I'm not yet fluent in applicable "technical terms" (as far as any have been coined already); but at least I had read about "Lakatos" already. So reading "P&R", for once, seems good advice. Thus +1.
    – user12262
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 22:19
  • 1
    How is what we intended to define extraneous? And did you consider any of the rest of the post, or just stop there?
    – user9166
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 0:03
  • jobermark: "How is what we intended to define extraneous?" -- Well, you name it ("intent"). Can any one specific definition (e.g. in terms of "points", "edges", and, along with "straigthness", perhaps a full-fledged metric space) not be considered and used without regard of intent? (Even: of intents of whoever might be interested?) Doesn't science (especially experimental) rather subscribe to "impartiality"? ... "And did you consider any of the rest of the post" -- Only with growing incomprehension/displeasure; sorry.
    – user12262
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 6:18
  • @user12262 That is our divergence. Definitions of long standing may be impartial, but they are never so when initially proposed -- they seek some goal or capture some individual's intuition, so they are biased. Science may work toward impartiality, but it cannot start there. There is no purely objective observation, rule or choice of words, but in combining enough you can get balance and thus impartiality. So we need to freely fix definitions, moving toward including more perspectives in our understanding, rather than imagining they originate with some special warrant against error.
    – user9166
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 10:40
  • That is why the post contains the examples of IQ and personality traits. You can watch the history slowly wind in on the definitions. From the actual literature you have to see it change over time. If you like harder science, consider the process by which birds became dinosaurs, or Pluto stopped being a planet. The definitions got better.
    – user9166
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 10:44