Dictionary definition vs. logical definition (moved from Freethinking Anonymous)
Posted on: August 1, 2007 - 10:50pm
Offline
Dictionary definition vs. logical definition (moved from Freethinking Anonymous)
Warning/Alert: English is my second language and I am a lousy typist. Sorry.
What could “logical definition mean” in contrast to dictionary definition?
Is it even important to invent the logical definition of certain key words for a given context?
Give some examples, if you wish.
- Login to post comments
How about 'erection' when it isn't really built?
Moreso than any 'logical definition', the etymology of a word develops into an intersubjective dictionary definition.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
darth_josh,
Sorry, I did not understand.
I don't understand your question. Are you referring to common definition vs dictionary definition? I don't think there is an absolute definition for any word. (ei same exact 5 words will define 1 word in all dictionaries and different contexts).
Logical definitions are more precise than colloquial definitions, and they must have a specific referrent.
In other words, if I say, "I have a mind to talk to that person," you'll know what I'm talking about, but in logic, that sentence is nonsense.
"Mind" in that sense is part of a slang expression, and literally means, "desire." If I were to use that in logic, I'd have to first present a premise with that specific definition.
The reason logical definitions are so important is that they help us avoid the fallacy of equivocation, which is essentially using multiple definitions to make something true. The most common example around here is the use of the word "faith." You've made this error in several of your posts, too. Watch:
I have faith that the chair I'm sitting in will not collapse while I am sitting here.
I have faith that there is a god who loves me and who will let me go to heaven when I die.
****
On the surface, these look like the same kind of sentence, but they're not. There's a conflation (equivocation) between two very different definitions of "faith."
In the first sentence, my faith in the chair is based on probability and the empirical evidence that I've been alive several decades and no chairs have collapsed while I sat. In other words, faith in this context is defined as "reasonable expectation based on evidence and probability."
In the second sentence, faith is NOT based on evidence, for there is no evidence that a god exists. In fact, there is quite a lot of evidence that there is not a god. Furthermore, the very definition of "supernatural" is contradictory, and therefore we can say that anything defined as supernatural cannot exist. So, faith, in this sentence, means "belief despite evidence to the contrary, or total lack of evidence."
The two definitions are quite different, but unless we insist on precise definitions, the theist (or spunky atheist trying to push buttons) can say, "Atheists and theists both have faith."
In fact, it's not the same at all. Atheists have "reasonable expectations" and theists have "belief despite contrary evidence."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
My answer:
Dictionary definition versus Logical definition.
Hamby wrote: Logical definitions are more precise than colloquial definitions, and they must have a specific referrent.
I concur.
English is the most superior language in terms of number of vocabulary for every day conversation. But it is not good enough when thought processing paramount. No language is.Yes, dictionary definitions are important and should be used whenever warranted. But we must realize many dictionary definitions were written many decades ago or even hundreds of years ago, when we had very little scientific knowledge and understanding of what that word is for. F
or example: recent (last 50 years) development in human psychology shows problems in old psychological terminology. Previously we lump sum mixture of emotions into word “happiness”. Now we know there are different kinds of happiness. Back then we had no clue about our own emotion. We did not even know what want to say.Reference: http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/This book is more about how our mind process information. Excellent book. We lump sum many fuzzy feelings, many thoughts, into single word. We defined word without verifying consistency and coherency holistically. What does holistically mean in this context?If you draw a mesh diagram of all the words and their corresponding meaning as they are defined in dictionary you will see the contradiction all over the place.
Words have multiple meanings, or attributes. One could draw a tree diagram for each word and when you combined this tree diagram it will quickly turn into mesh diagram. You will not see these kinds of contradiction in computer language.For deep thought processing, command of English Language is not the bottle neck. But the lack of ability to see and extract the logical definition of words, reading between the lines is. If command of the language were the bottle neck then there wouldn’t have been contentious among many non-English speaking great philosophers, scientists, mathematicians from all over the world. As a matter of fact we have the logic to communicate even with space aliens based on consistent logical symbols (ARECIBO) http://www.naic.edu/After all atom, trees, stars, gravity doesn’t speak English language but we were able to figure out their rules.
Consistency, coherency, no-contradiction, establishing connection are the main things. I admit, my lack of command of English language but that is not the bottle neck. Notice the connectivity of meaning of understanding of “brain wash and understanding” and Logical definition/explanation of “Faith” and of importance of “logical definition” over “dictionary definition” and why stopping at “ we do not steal because it is against our morality” is a kind of FAITH to me unless you explain that something similar to how Hamby did. Link: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9085
I don't know what exactly is meant by logical v dictionary, but I have always made the distinction between denotation and connotation. The difference is the technical or official definition as logged in a dictionary (denotation) and the use of the term--how it's used--(connotation).
I'm a fan of Wittgenstein's later work, and thus understand that words mean what we use them to mean. A dictionary is a log of the various common usages of words in a language, and they change over time along with the change in usage.
Of course, there are technical terms, words with specific meanings in certain contexts, but language is organic and changes over time.
I don't know if that helps at all, but there it is.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Shaun,
Granted, I am speaking colloquially about logic (how's that for irony!) but the distinction I was trying to make is this:
Colloquial definitions include connotations and conflations. This is what allows for humor, ambiguity, and deception.
Dictionary definitions are lists of all possible denotations, and sometimes connotations.
Logical definitions are a single definition from the list of possible dictionary definitions.
Again, it's just layman-speak, but does that clear up what I was trying to say?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yes it does, and those distinctions are good. I think the important part os that the logical definitions need to be spelled out in order to consider them propositions, which is important for logic and it's conclusions.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.