3 ms·

> Australia is a continent, so it cannot be an island by definition So the reason greenland being an island is due to definition then? Which makes the concept

by chii 4y ago

> Australia is a continent, so it cannot be an island by definition So the reason greenland being an island is due to definition then? Which makes the concept of an island moot, as it's driven via definition, rather than criteria.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So the reason greenland being an island is due to definition then?" Isn't everything, including criteria?
- mahathu 4y ago
  No, it's the difference between normative and descriptive categorizations.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    But deciding that some concept A is defined by criterion / set-of-criteria B is itself normative, a definition by fiat.
iso1631 4y ago
The unambigious definition would be a contiguous landmass surrounded by water at sealevel, which would be in descending order of area Afro-Eurasia * Americas * Antarctica Australia landmass Greenland * This of course depending on how rivers and man-made canals of Suez, Panama, and other canals like Kiel, or ones linking rivers, are treated, there could be arguments that Suez should be included (no locks), but Panama shouldn't be, or all should be, or none should be, or Suez and Panama should be, etc
layer8 4y ago
Countries are defined by convention as well; that doesn’t make them a moot concept. That aside, there is actually a rather good criteria-based definition for continents vs. islands: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568455
pc86 4y ago
What the difference between definition and criteria?
- chii 4y ago
  a criteria can be applied to something to find out if it fits - a definition is by fiat (without the use of any criteria).
CRConrad 4y ago
> Which makes the concept of an island moot, as it's driven via definition, rather than criteria. So all concepts that are "driven via definition, rather than criteria" are moot? Isn't that... All of them?

3 ms·

> Australia is a continent, so it cannot be an island by definition So the reason greenland being an island is due to definition then? Which makes the concept

by chii 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So the reason greenland being an island is due to definition then?" Isn't everything, including criteria?
- mahathu 4y ago
  No, it's the difference between normative and descriptive categorizations.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    But deciding that some concept A is defined by criterion / set-of-criteria B is itself normative, a definition by fiat.
iso1631 4y ago
The unambigious definition would be a contiguous landmass surrounded by water at sealevel, which would be in descending order of area Afro-Eurasia * Americas * Antarctica Australia landmass Greenland * This of course depending on how rivers and man-made canals of Suez, Panama, and other canals like Kiel, or ones linking rivers, are treated, there could be arguments that Suez should be included (no locks), but Panama shouldn't be, or all should be, or none should be, or Suez and Panama should be, etc
layer8 4y ago
Countries are defined by convention as well; that doesn’t make them a moot concept. That aside, there is actually a rather good criteria-based definition for continents vs. islands: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568455
pc86 4y ago
What the difference between definition and criteria?
- chii 4y ago
  a criteria can be applied to something to find out if it fits - a definition is by fiat (without the use of any criteria).
CRConrad 4y ago
> Which makes the concept of an island moot, as it's driven via definition, rather than criteria. So all concepts that are "driven via definition, rather than criteria" are moot? Isn't that... All of them?