Arguing Definitions Over Subject Material

[Rommie]

So, a few months ago I went to a talk by Randall Munroe (ie, xkcd comics guy), and somewhere in that discussion Randall was asked a question like the age-old "what is a planet?" Response from Randall was to point out that debates about the definition of words are not really useful as debates about the science behind them, and holy crap did that resonate with me. So I've been implementing it more in my daily life since- for example, turns out there's a shit ton of theory papers in astro that boil down to "let's argue over the definition of this word over the science behind this word." I know this because we have a grad student who brings these papers regularly to group meeting. So now, after a minute or two of discussion just to make sure this isn't a question of "I don't understand the science" I point out to her this is actually a definition question over a science one, so instead of spending 15-30 minutes frustrated by the boring direction of things we now usually wrap it up and move onto other topics.

Similarly, I was emailing my dad about something and as part of his response he insisted to me conspiracy theories don't exist in science, there are only alternate theories. (Apparently stuff like flat Earth is neither, that's just stupid. Things can be both!) I was about to be drawn into this but then was like you know what dad, feel free to call it whatever you want, there's plenty of shit in my inbox that's flat out wrong but I don't see the value in arguing over the definition of if that's a conspiracy theory, alternate theory, or pseudoscience, because that's a question of definition over substance. Which of course got a giant, long response, but I just don't feel obliged to respond again because I already explained why.

Anyway, I feel like I have a great life hack now in getting out of boring arguments I don't like, as it turns out a lot of them are just definition related over substance related. And maybe y'all knew this. But for some reason I didn't, and thought it's an interesting enough distinction to share here (particularly as traditionally forums like this had a lot of debates about definitions over substance!).

[Thumper]

That is very interesting. I sometimes feel I get pigeonholed into an argument that I can't win because I can't get to my point. I'll have to look next time so see if it's about definitions and I cannot get to my subject. I know there are all kinds of "skills" in arguing to keep your opponent from getting to their point. Or the age old: "Mr. Jones, have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?"
But I'll be interested to see if I can step back during an argument and see if it's been framed about definition rather than substance.

[Rommie]

Yes, pigeonholed is the perfect word to describe it. Just sometimes arguments feel stupid because it turns out you're not arguing interesting things.

Let me know how it goes!

[geonuc]

That's been a pet peeve of mine as well. It dovetails with the maxim "without intent there can be no offense," which similarly deals with how we define words.

[pumpkinpi]

So, a few months ago I went to a talk by Randall Munroe (ie, xkcd comics guy),

Awesome! I love all his stuff. What If 2 is on my Christmas list.

and somewhere in that discussion Randall was asked a question like the age-old "what is a planet?" Response from Randall was to point out that debates about the definition of words are not really useful as debates about the science behind them, and holy crap did that resonate with me. So I've been implementing it more in my daily life since- for example, turns out there's a shit ton of theory papers in astro that boil down to "let's argue over the definition of this word over the science behind this word."

Yes. Or, when you are with little kids, turn it into a discussion about the process of science. That's what I do with Pluto.I tell them why it was "put into a different category" (not demoted) due to expanding knowledge of our solar system, but I don't get hung up on what a planet is and isn't. Sometimes I even compare it to dinosaurs--new discoveries have led to changes in terminology. Poor brontosaurus. (Or was it brought back again?)

I've started thinking about it more broadly than science, too. It's so important to remember that definitions are inventions/interpretations of humans, and not many of them can be based in absolutes.


Regarding Pluto, TBH if I were in charge I'd let the planetary scientists, you know, the ones who actually study these worlds, define a planet. And if that's the case, it's anything with a surface you can study--moons and asteroids included. We'd have thousands of them. Which is fine. The argument that if we include dwarf planets (another stupid definition) there would be to many is ridiculous.

[Rommie]

Regarding Pluto, TBH if I were in charge I'd let the planetary scientists, you know, the ones who actually study these worlds, define a planet. And if that's the case, it's anything with a surface you can study--moons and asteroids included. We'd have thousands of them. Which is fine. The argument that if we include dwarf planets (another stupid definition) there would be to many is ridiculous.

So I don't remember if I mentioned this before, but some years before I saw a talk by Dava Sobel, the science writer, who was the "civilian" member of the committee at the IAU meeting that defined what a planet was. What I found fascinating was at first pass that is what the committee said- we would just have dozens and perhaps hundreds of planets! But for a few days there was such a major public outcry that they were forced to make up the dwarf planet category we have today.

Apparently btw one of the main reasons for keeping the numbers low was "how will schoolchildren learn the names of all the planets?" And Dava was like "have you met kids? they learn things that interest them," because apparently she's had kids come up to her regularly saying all 50+ names of Jupiter's moons and such.

[Sigma_Orionis]

If you think that's bad, you should have seen how things were at organizations where everyone squabbled around the "Mision" and the "Vision" of said organizations when that nonsense was a management fad. Never heard so much BS in my life. There's a name for those kinds of arguments: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?