4 ms·
This is why research ontologies split labels from concepts, and link them with contexts (e.g. citations). When parties join into this framework of understandin
by xipho 4y ago
This is why research ontologies split labels from concepts, and link them with contexts (e.g. citations). When parties join into this framework of understanding then discussions get down to the nitty-gritty details of what meaningful work can be done with the concepts. None of this says that any of it is "real", complete, precise etc., it says that if we agree on x, then we can do something useful, y. Want to label "the exoskeleton bearing 6 legged ... etc." a "fish"? Go ahead, we'll go back to think, read, and understand what is being discussed, and given this deeper understanding agree to do something useful (perhaps preserve said "fish"), or not, i.e. we'll do law-stuff in this case.
This of course doesn't work unless the parties agree to playing in the shared framework, otherwise labels/words have untethered power, which is typically what happens on the internet. It also isn't universally effective, sometimes going deep gets in the way of doing meaningful stuff.
- giantg2 4y agoIn general, "law-stuff" uses the definitions specified in the law. If a word isn't defined, then they can look at how other laws define the word. Then they could look at the definition in a dictionary. This is established process. The proper way to get this useful thing done is for the legislature to amend the law to be more inclusive.
- xipho 4y ago> amend the law to be more inclusive Philosophy tells us this is one way to change concepts, another is to narrow definitions, both have known limitations. There are many ways to do meaningful things, by this definition "proper" just means something meaningful was done?
- tptacek 4y agoThat's exactly what they did. People with objections to this decision want the court to amend the law to be more exclusive, not the other way around.
- giantg2 4y ago"People with objections to this decision want the court to amend the law to be more exclusive," Where in the law is it inclusive defined?
- butlerm 4y agoNot quite. The problem with the way the law is drafted is that the court could have just as easily (and perhaps more likely) applied the legal rule of construction known as noscitur a sociis (Latin, it is known by its associates) and interpreted "invertebrate" in context to mean something more like wet invertebrate. That, ultimately is what makes the drafters of the pertinent amendment to the statute look sloppy, like they do not know what they are doing. The court could have reasonably gone either way, and without some failure prone inquiry into legislative history they may not have any way to tell what the legislature intended. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is simply shorthand for a standard way to resolve ambiguities like this, but the court used a different rule, making the legislature look silly for allegedly defining all invertebrates as fish for the purposes of this statute. Allegedly.