| A nicely done article by Robby, given that arguing definitions is too often a thankless waste of time. Some selections from [1] ... > Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn’t go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led. See [1] for some tips on moving past the fruitless arguments: > Personally I’d say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents ... > ... Or each side could designate a new word, like ‘alberzle’ and ‘bargulum,’ > ... and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. > And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about. > Does that sound right to you? [1]: https://www.readthesequences.com/Disputing-Definitions |