[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 62 KB, 976x850, 1631741116627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20019965 No.20019965 [Reply] [Original]

Why does everyone insist that arguing semantics has no meaning? Words in society have incredible amounts of power, regardless of what concept they refer to. It seems to me properly defining a word is an ethical issue.

>> No.20019969

>>20019965
They only have power because people give them power

>> No.20019978

>>20019969
right, but the concepts they refer to are true whether a word or symbol represents them or not. If there is a word that is getting hijacked by an ideology to refer to a wrong concept, you are within your rights to insist on a different definition.

>> No.20019984

>>20019965
99% of the time that people argue semantics they are ignoring the point.

>> No.20019985

>>20019965
>Why does everyone insist that arguing semantics has no meaning?
Its a literal meme. Semantics arguments are the only real arguments because they involve making a real claim. Debate bro retards just want everything to be a deductive boxing match from some axiom set, and if someone questions the choice of axioms, they're accused of arguing semantics and dismissed. Debate bros thrive off of the "gotcha" moment where the crowd can all feel that deductive switch, where one opponent slips up in logic usually due to exhaustion.

>> No.20020000

>>20019984
99% of the time that people dismiss arguing semantics they are ignoring the point so they can show off their epic deductive logic skills and own their debate opponents, to the detriment of anyone learning anything new or insightful whatsoever.

>> No.20020007

>>20019978
Language should strive to be as logical and nominal as possible

I write:
>As stated, the best language is the one with the most discreet vocabulary and grammar, for it can explain many concepts that would clear up confusion when conducting experiments or making scientific judgments

>> No.20020015

>>20019965
It's not that they have no meaning, but that the way they're treated, as cultural territory, is incompatible with the basic functioning of language.

>> No.20020029

>>20020000
So the obvious should be ignored so you can go off the topic at hand?

>> No.20020038

>>20019965
arguing over semantics is disputing a point based on the terminology used rather than the legitimacy of the claim itself. So more often than not a semantic contention is basically just nitpicking. Of course, you’re right to suggest that words do have a lot of power; and if a specific word choice conveys a very different kind of meaning, or carries with it distinct connotations at odds with the overarching point, then that obviously should be taken into account. So just as an example, if I was arguing about evolution and used the term “designed” rather than “naturally “selected” and someone took issue with that, it’s mostly irrelevant to my argument what I meant with that word choice if the claim I was making about evolution was justifiably true. It’s an error, sure- but not one that undermines the legitimacy of my claim. However if I used the word “designed” because I believe in intelligent design, that’s another story.

>> No.20020042

>>20020038
towering IQ post

>> No.20020076

>>20020007
that's correct, but looks at the redefinition by cultural elites of the word "gender" for example. ITs obvious the concept exist, but there is no reason to hijack the word that refers to biological aspect when you could just coin a different term, It seems its entirely based on subversion.

>> No.20020100

>>20020038
>“designed” rather than “naturally “selected” and someone took issue with that, it’s mostly irrelevant to my argument what I meant with that word choice if the claim I was making about evolution was justifiably true. It’s an error, sure- but not one that undermines the legitimacy of my claim. However if I used the word “designed” because I believe in intelligent design, that’s another story.
I actually believe some form of ID and I'll tell you what I mean because the thought process of my opinion is actually related. When people say that Darwinism is true, they don't LITERALLY mean random fluctuations or particles randomly assemble themselves into life, what they actually do is assume, by definition, that teleology can't exist, and so they are justified in saying it "looks designed" but its only an illusion. My point is they don't even implement any sort of statistical or information theoretic measure for what it would look like if it WAS teleological. So they have effectively defined design out of the equation apriori. It seems to me to be much more reasonable for it to both be possible that it is random, or possible it is non random.

>> No.20020108

>>20020029
I don't think people like you realize how trivial logical deduction is. Nothing is accomplished if we don't address the underlying axioms, only optics bullshit about which ape slipped up his syntax leading to a contradiction. You can use this type of debate to determine whether a person is consistent about their axioms, but literally almost nothing else. The real issue is totally untouched, that being, what ought to be our axioms? Logical deduction only gestures towards this goal negatively, you can use it to determine which axiom sets are obviously contradictory but not much else. Once the debate is over we're back to the drawing board.

>> No.20020123

>>20020038
beautiful

>> No.20020130

>>20020108
>I don't think people like you realize how trivial logical deduction is
OK. Addressing an underlying axiom is a very different thing from arguing semantics.

>> No.20020156

>>20020130
>Addressing an underlying axiom is a very different thing from arguing semantics
Could you illustrate this difference for me because I'm not seeing such a significant contrast.

>> No.20020164

>>20020000
this.
sophists gtfo

>> No.20020169

>>20020130
there actually isnt much difference, you can't even appeal to sense experience because that is ultimately understood through ideas in you schema which is ultimately axiomatic. Like OP said its ultimately an intuitive and ethical issue. This comes as no surprise either, that Is why people took divine scriptures as axiomatic for years.

>> No.20020214

>>20020156
>>20020169
Addressing underlying axioms
>x supports y
>by x do you mean this?
or
>could you elaborate on what you mean by x for me?
Arguing semantics
>no, x means this and now I am going to ignore y and rant about x even though if I thought about your use of x for half a second I would get your point but I am not going to do that I am going to rant about x and put you on the defensive about x even though we are talking about y.

There is no reason to argue the semantics, it only serves to derail, ask for clarification and stay on topic.

>> No.20020236

>>20020214
I disagree with Academia's definition of "Gender" for various ethical reasons, but I understand the concept perfectly fine. It is not a question of clarification, it is a question of morality.

>> No.20020271

>>20020236
So? You are talking about a literal debate on an issue of semantics, almost no one has an issue with that. When people say you are arguing semantics they are saying you are ignoring the issue made in favor of an issue of sematics.

>> No.20020275

>>20019965

Properly defining words is a cultural issue as is all matters of language.
The power of words, the arguing, the inevitable result where people get fed up arguing about them and deem it "meaningless", it's all a product of ancient cultural forces. To seek to strip down language to some scientifically quantifiable and universal standard is nothing but a rejection of culture for the sake of convenience. In short it is globalism.

>> No.20020280

>>20020271
Oh, I mean I guess the problem was semantics of the word semantics...

>> No.20020290

>>20019965

What i hate the most is when people come with "in my definition"...
Go take a fucking dictionnary and learn a sentence;

>> No.20020291

>>20020100
>My point is they don't even implement any sort of statistical or information theoretic measure for what it would look like if it WAS teleological. So they have effectively defined design out of the equation apriori.
I’m the anon you replied to. So what kind of statistical measure would you use to determine what evolution would look like if it was by design? How can you tell the difference between a divine junkyard tornado and the glacial pace of natural selection over millions of years?

>> No.20020298

>>20020280
No, it is you having no understanding of context.

>> No.20020299

>>20020214
>>no, x means this and now I am going to ignore y and rant about x even though if I thought about your use of x for half a second I would get your point but I am not going to do that I am going to rant about x and put you on the defensive about x even though we are talking about y.
Sorry,
Having some trouble parsing your post, is this supposed to be the person arguing semantics or the person having semantics used against them? Do you mean that arguing semantics is when you say, for example, "I believe in God, so we shouldn't kill people" and then the semantics-arguing opponent responds with "Heh, well believing in God actually means you must be ok with killing people! That's what it means to believe in God!"

>> No.20020311
File: 225 KB, 1043x820, 1642381232762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20020311

>>20020291
Theres been lots of papers written on this subject, both for and against, and academic is finally coming around to the idea of teleology, but I think the best place to start is the concept of specified complexity.

>> No.20020322

>>20020291
>specified complexity
also note mainstream sources are lying about what this concept actually is, ironically another case of the topic related to this thread. Will Dembski's books are great to understand the idea.

>> No.20020331

>>20020311
>>20020322
Checked and consensus-pilled. Thanks for the primer fellas, should be interesting stuff.

>> No.20020332

>>20020298
nah, youre just an asshole

>> No.20020510

>>20020299
>"I believe in God, so we shouldn't kill people" and then the semantics-arguing opponent responds with "Heh, well believing in God actually means you must be ok with killing people! That's what it means to believe in God!"
That sort of works if you accept a little abstraction, they ignored the point made regarding your faith, but semantics is literally about the meaning of a word. Gender is a good example here and it was already brought up so why not; a discussion about the gender roles of anon20020271's same sex parents
sematics
>there are no gender roles, they are the same gender
Conversation is now about gender literally and we never progress because he just seethes about gender.

addressing the axiom
>could you define what you mean by gender?
>I just mean that one parent tends to fall into the role of mother and the other falls into the role of father
Conversation continues on with its purpose and things are seen in the intended context so you can form a proper response to the idea as a whole and you find out that those same sex parents are actually the biological father and his brother who moved in to help after the biological mother died of cancer. You do not need to agree with their definition to grasp the entire point, you just need to know their definition and that will allow you to respond to the entire point.
>anon20020271 sees them both as mom and is gay, it does not really matter what role they see themselves falling into since they are both functionally mothers.

>> No.20020597

>>20020510
As an aside, you may notice that I have stuck to the terms/phrases used by others in this thread, such as "addressing the axiom." This is part of the same thing, when in a discussion do not use your own terms in response when responding unless you literally mean something different, you have agreed upon a meaning for that word either explicitly or implied and you imply a different meaning if you use a word that you feel is a synonym. This also means you should find a different way to verbalize how you would normally use a word which has a different agreed upon definition in the context of the discussion, generally you can just add on some sort of modifier that both distinguishes it and identifies how it differs.

>> No.20021543

>>20020510
Ok, so you mean semantics is arguing over the meanings of terms and insisting that YOUR meaning is the proper one rather than addressing the equivocality of the terms on the debate stage and asking for clarification, and then moving forward with respect to what they actually mean, whether you agree with their premises or not?