4 ms·

In legal contracts, definitions are not only necessary, but also protect both parties. That's why definitions are added in contracts. There are definiendum (a

In legal contracts, definitions are not only necessary, but also protect both parties. That's why definitions are added in contracts. There are definiendum (a term that needs to be defined) and definiens (that does the defining). Definiendum =df definiens What do these definitions do? Replace a symbol (or a string) with a sentence or set of sentences. How do these help settle disputes? Let us imagine a scenario: Some Y says that there are no native religions in Africa, except Christianity, Islam and Judaism, because Y defends this based on his theory of religion. Another guy say: Ah, whether native religions exist in Africa depends on your definition of 'religion'. In that case, Y will say: 'religion' =df what does not exist in Africa. Now one can see all absurdities about definitions. One needs a theory about what religion is (in the world) to settle whether native religions exist in Africa/India. Instead of coming up with theories with testable consequences, one engages in definitional quibbles and plausibility arguments. Now look at plausibility arguments. If someone can argue for P, others can equally argue for ~P (not P). How to pick between P and ~P? Based on people's voting? This is another reason to have theories (as we see in Natural sciences). Now you can see journalists, professors who assign students to write arguments, and students trained by such professors.

skybrian 4y ago
I recommend reading Bret Devereaux for examples of deft handling of definitional issues in history. For example, his series on the fall of Rome [1]. It's certainly possible to get into silly disputes about what counts as the "Roman empire" and what it means for it to "fall" but he uses this as a starting point to talk about what evidence we have about actually happened. Different historians define things differently depending on their perspectives, but you just accept and deal with that. Similarly, I could see someone wanting to talk about religion to make some definitions just to be clearer what they're talking about, but then you go on to talk about what people actually do. [1] https://acoup.blog/category/collections/fall-of-rome/ https://acoup.blog/category/collections/fall-of-rome/

skybrian 4y ago

I recommend reading Bret Devereaux for examples of deft handling of definitional issues in history. For example, his series on the fall of Rome [1]. It's certainly possible to get into silly disputes about what counts as the "Roman empire" and what it means for it to "fall" but he uses this as a starting point to talk about what evidence we have about actually happened. Different historians define things differently depending on their perspectives, but you just accept and deal with that. Similarly, I could see someone wanting to talk about religion to make some definitions just to be clearer what they're talking about, but then you go on to talk about what people actually do. [1] https://acoup.blog/category/collections/fall-of-rome/ https://acoup.blog/category/collections/fall-of-rome/