Definitions do not have truth value. They are neither true nor false. They are not logical propositions — they are definitions.
They are descriptive.
They don’t imply anything. They don’t prove anything. They’re not provable. A word and its definition form a tautology.
Haven’t you ever read a damn geometry book? Terms are defined. Period. THERE ARE NO PROOFS OF THE DEFINITIONS. The proofs use the definitions to begin a chain of inference that ends with a conclusion.
Words can mean different things in different contexts. Webster’s Unabridged gives more than thirty — THIRTY — definitions for the word “run”.
Physics uses “force” to mean mass times acceleration. But law uses “force” to mean legal validity. If you’re so clueless that you think a discussion in physics might be dealing with court cases or a discussion in law might be dealing with how gravity works, then go to one of the countless message boards that host the same sort of mindless adolescents who cannot distinguish one discipline from the other.
If you think that a modal ontology proof would be about something other than necessary and possible existence, then here’s five bucks.
Go buy a clue.
What the hell did you mean by “dodge” — “answer directly”? Dodge, my red ass.
Humans percieve light between certain wavelengths. Human eyes are sensitive to notice gradiations in color along those wavelengths. Light at the lower end of the spectrum is distinguishable (by most people) to light 1/7th of an optical octave above it. Hence, red exists.
It just riles my ass like nothing else, that’s all. I don’t go to Great Debates to play games and light fires under people’s asses. I don’t dodge arguments. When I see a compelling argument that contradicts my own, I change my mind. Hell, I’ve done exactly that numerous times. I’m not afraid of losing a debate. It’s not a game to me where I think I have to win no matter what. It’s a way to learn.
Red exists? Red exists? Who asked anything about its existence? I’m talking about proving definitions.
[…checking to be sure…]
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
Prove that a turtle is “Any of various aquatic or terrestrial reptiles of the order Testudines (or Chelonia), having horny toothless jaws and a bony or leathery shell into which the head, limbs, and tail can be withdrawn in most species.”
Of course definitions can’t have truth value. That’s different from making an argument based on wacky assumptions, then assuming people to Only argue the logic, not the assumptions! When has anyone assailed your logical skills? I myself have not, only assailed your logical models and your assumptions.
When called on your assumptions, when you do respond, you respond quite nicely, without becoming defensive (except this time, seemingly), and I applaud you for that, but most of the time, you simply ignore the request for argument of the premises and continue to argue the logic.
Logic, however, is the Scientific Method to science’s original research, the coding and debugging to programmings business requirements design. Logic and a buck will buy you a couple days of AOL. It’s the assumptions that are interesting.
Also Lib, proving what is meant to be proved through unequivocal means seems to be your modus operandi in quite a few of your more distinguished threads. Possibly your modus vivendi as it may turn out to be, in your day to day living. Reminds me of the film A Beautiful Mind. Which is certainly not a dig.
As for the OP I am sure I do not have to tell you, that yes, you are correct. Definitions by their true nature do not have pure truth value. IMHO we don’t need to get mad when the ignorant hoards show their guises.
I’m not sure if this is even related but I was reading a book on paradoxes recently and in it they had colors. The thing about them was this, at what point on the color spectrum is “red” red, and at what point is “orange” a different color, distinct from red. Sort of like the old “heaps” paradox.
The communicational value of language is in its shared meanings. Definitions are a method of identifying the meanings that we share for our language. You are free to reject those shared meanings, of course, but you should do so with the awareness that your preferred meaning is not the one that most people are sharing.
Well, maybe part of the problem is that certain words, like possible and neccesary, have different definitions in daily life than they do in philosophy, and maybe Lib is using the philosophy definition and some other people are using the standard definition?
Check my last post to this thread.