What's really at stake is an atheist's claim of substantial difference and superiority relative to religion
Often semantics matter because laws and contracts are written in words. When "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it's sometimes advantageous to claim that you're not a religion, or that your enemy is a religion. If churches get preferential tax treatment, it may be advantageous to claim that you're a church.
Excellent post, however,"But people often don't realize that their argument about where to draw a definitional boundary, is really a dispute over whether to infer a characteristic shared by most things inside an empirical cluster..."Indeed so, but there are other aspects. Humans also have obsessions with(a) how far your cluster is from mine (kinship or the lack of it)(b) given one empirical cluster, how can I pick a characteristic, however minor, which will allow me to split it into 'us vs them' (Robber's Cave).So when you get to discussing whether an uploaded human brain is part of the cluster 'human', those are the considerations which will be foremost.
The question "Is this object a blegg?" may stand in for different queries on different occasions. If it weren't standing in for some query, you'd have no reason to care.
Basically, this is pragmatism in a nutshell -- right?
People who argue that atheism is a religion "because it states beliefs about God" are really trying to argue (I think) that the reasoning methods used in atheism are on a par with the reasoning methods used in religion, or that atheism is no safer than religion in terms of the probability of causally engendering violence, etc...
Or they're applying a Fully General Counterargument without actually trying to make any substantive point, or realizing that they should be?
Based on the work I've done in philosophy, this type of disagreement probably covers 50% of philosophical debates, with about 2% of the participants in such debates admitting that that is what they disagree about.Someone remind me against why I'm supposed to take philosophy seriously.
While the advisory against using a dictionary to resolve such arguments are true, a lot of arguments stem from confusion or disagreement over the meaning of words. Based on the work I've done in philosophy, this type of disagreement probably covers 50% of philosophical debates, with about 2% of the participants in such debates admitting that that is what they disagree about.
For example, "Most atheists believe in the divinity of Christ" could be resolved easily without recourse to the empirical world. If I believe that it is possible for someone to be an atheist and believe in the divinity of Christ, then I am using atheist to mean something very different from its actual meaning.
As you wrote earlier, using words invokes connotations regardless of whether a newly assigned definition merits the same connotations. Some on the far left have defined "racism" to mean "is White and lives in the USA." Appealing to a dictionary is useful in an argument with such a person because it prevents them from using a very charged word inappropriately. Similar tricks occur with "fascism," "freedom," "democracy," and many other such words.
Basically, a dictionary doesn't decide if an empirical cluster has a certain property, but it does ensure that the word you are using matches the empirical cluster you are referring to. It is irrational to try to prove an empirical fact with a definition. It is not at all irrational if there is any disagreement over what group is picked out by the word, or whether the group picked out by the word must or must not have a certain property, or else the word would not pick them out. More disagreements center on poorly understood definitions than most people would like to admit.
On a related note, this recent series on definitions is quite brilliantly written, Eliezer, even more so than usual.
Rolf, have you been reading Unqualified Reservations?
I'm having problems with the word "is" in your description.
This is not intended as a snarky comment...
Often semantics matter because laws and contracts are written in words.
What he said.
What's really at stake is an atheist's claim of substantial difference and superiority relative to religion
Often semantics matter because laws and contracts are written in words. When "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it's sometimes advantageous to claim that you're not a religion, or that your enemy is a religion. If churches get preferential tax treatment, it may be advantageous to claim that you're a church.
My favorite example is, Is a fetus a person?Yes, but it's still okay to murder them.
Micha Gertner has an interesting essay on pragmatism & economics here.
Or more concisely: sharp distinctions regarding fuzzy concepts are meaningless.
Excellent post, however,"But people often don't realize that their argument about where to draw a definitional boundary, is really a dispute over whether to infer a characteristic shared by most things inside an empirical cluster..."Indeed so, but there are other aspects. Humans also have obsessions with(a) how far your cluster is from mine (kinship or the lack of it)(b) given one empirical cluster, how can I pick a characteristic, however minor, which will allow me to split it into 'us vs them' (Robber's Cave).So when you get to discussing whether an uploaded human brain is part of the cluster 'human', those are the considerations which will be foremost.
The question "Is this object a blegg?" may stand in for different queries on different occasions. If it weren't standing in for some query, you'd have no reason to care.
Basically, this is pragmatism in a nutshell -- right?
Cheers,Ari
Summary: Aristotelianism considered harmful; Hilbert Space is the new industry standard.
People who argue that atheism is a religion "because it states beliefs about God" are really trying to argue (I think) that the reasoning methods used in atheism are on a par with the reasoning methods used in religion, or that atheism is no safer than religion in terms of the probability of causally engendering violence, etc...
Or they're applying a Fully General Counterargument without actually trying to make any substantive point, or realizing that they should be?
Is atheism a "religion"? Is transhumanism a "cult"?
My favorite example is, Is a fetus a person?
Because if no one takes philosophy seriously, the philosophers will have nothing at all.
Will you take that away from them? They have so little as it is.
Based on the work I've done in philosophy, this type of disagreement probably covers 50% of philosophical debates, with about 2% of the participants in such debates admitting that that is what they disagree about.Someone remind me against why I'm supposed to take philosophy seriously.
While the advisory against using a dictionary to resolve such arguments are true, a lot of arguments stem from confusion or disagreement over the meaning of words. Based on the work I've done in philosophy, this type of disagreement probably covers 50% of philosophical debates, with about 2% of the participants in such debates admitting that that is what they disagree about.
For example, "Most atheists believe in the divinity of Christ" could be resolved easily without recourse to the empirical world. If I believe that it is possible for someone to be an atheist and believe in the divinity of Christ, then I am using atheist to mean something very different from its actual meaning.
As you wrote earlier, using words invokes connotations regardless of whether a newly assigned definition merits the same connotations. Some on the far left have defined "racism" to mean "is White and lives in the USA." Appealing to a dictionary is useful in an argument with such a person because it prevents them from using a very charged word inappropriately. Similar tricks occur with "fascism," "freedom," "democracy," and many other such words.
Basically, a dictionary doesn't decide if an empirical cluster has a certain property, but it does ensure that the word you are using matches the empirical cluster you are referring to. It is irrational to try to prove an empirical fact with a definition. It is not at all irrational if there is any disagreement over what group is picked out by the word, or whether the group picked out by the word must or must not have a certain property, or else the word would not pick them out. More disagreements center on poorly understood definitions than most people would like to admit.
On a related note, this recent series on definitions is quite brilliantly written, Eliezer, even more so than usual.