I propose that this term should be used for that tiresome challenge one often meets in debate: "Define what you mean by x..."
(I can only find one "hit" of the term on the internet, and not in that context. So I hereby claim its invention.)
I'm very suspicious of the whole business of definition. My standard response to this is: "Define what you mean by define."
Every definition rests on terms which themselves require definition. It's a silly game.
Of course, there's a place for definition in law and other specialist contexts. But even here, things get fuzzy.
I was a member of a jury once. I remember the barrister giving us the following (apparently celebrated) example of what "reasonable doubt" entails. If a person walks into a building all wet, you can know it's raining beyond a reasonable doubt. They might be filming a movie outside and have some kind of rain machine, but that's highly unlikely.
I consider that fuzzy.
People only play the definitions game to score points and throw their opponent, anyway. We all use words every day without demanding definitions and we generally understand each other.
I suppose an exception is words and phrases that do have several different usages, such as "sanction". (I've been married to an American for thirteen years and we still occasionally hit the Shavian obstacle of "two countries divided by a common language." As in; "Why was there a buoy in the water? Why didn't someone pull him out?" But rarely.)
Yes, I've been arguing with someone on the internet. (I try not to.)
It all comes down to good faith. Is it a real discussion or just an attempt to win an argument? If someone wants to understand your meaning better, then that is one thing, but if he just wants you to say something so he can show why you're wrong, then that's another matter.
ReplyDeleteVery well put, and I think it's nearly always the latter!
DeleteSometime back I watched one of those horrible YouTube events where one person with a view takes on twelve nasty opponents. It was Jordan Peterson against twelve atheists. But it was Peterson who came off as the pedant. He refused to specify his religious views or lack thereof, and one of the atheists lost patience and said, “Do you believe in God or not?” Peterson’s angry response: “ Define what you mean by belief?” He came off as a total bluffer.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I had the same reaction. If he's going to apply that standard to belief, he should have to apply it to everything else. Discourse would become impossible.
DeleteHaving said that, people were going a bit OTT with the reaction, saying his whole career was over or that he'd lost all credibility. The little kid who snarked him was a brat.