I was just wondering whether it was necessary to lay out the full definition of a word in order to competently apply it to things, or to know it applies to things.
For example, "embryos are organisms", do you need to know the exact definition of "organism" to know that claim is true? If you don't, how could you justify it to another person? I would think you would just say "that's what biologists say", but I don't know if that is a fallacious appeal to authority.
For example, "embryos are organisms", do you need to know the exact definition of "organism" to know that claim is true?
First of all you need to know the meaning, not necessarily the definition. People were talking to each other (with some success) before there were dictionaries and definitions.
So one would need to know the meaning first of all to understand such sentences? Like "All forzies are brackeldoos" is a claim that could mean anything unless you have definitions.
Still some words have multiple definitions and meanings, or are used differently from their written definition, generating a new meaning variation over time. Most prominently this happens for youth language to describe things that are good or bad, such as "cool".
For most words outside formal context, their meaning derives from their usage. So "embryos are organisms" may not be seen as a claim based on fixed definitions, but as a means to describe the meaning of the words, as part of the answer to the questions "what are embryos? What are organisms?" In such a sense the statement would automatically be "true" as it generates the meaning of the words.
But in natural sciences like biology, it is annoying if words are ambiguous and shifting, so people generally try to assign fixed meanings so people understand each other more easily. In that context we can look up the meaning of words in books to decide whether the claim is true in biology or not. A book might give a definition, or might describe the meaning in other ways.
To build on @Conifold's excellent comment, if by "full definition" we mean "a string of symbols that conveys the exact meaning of a word" then no, we cannot do that -- we will always end up hitting some "bedrock" cluster of words whose meaning is pre-linguistic.
They way we attach meaning to symbols (or "signs" as they are sometimes called) is not by using more symbols. How we actually do this is itself an entire area of study. This SEP article on Theories of Meaning is probably a good place to start. There is even a whole article devoted to the meaning of words.
One of the dimensions of the debate is the role of reference vs intension: to what does a word refer vs what does the speaker mean.
In both cases, it is still acknowledged that meaning is ultimately not syntactic/grammatical but pre-lingual.
This makes sense in that way back in the mists of time, the panprotoindoeuropeans (our beloved linguistic metaculture) were trying to figure out how to make their grunts more specific to particular items around them - as opposed to every grunt meaning "Look over here".
In general, no. For almost all words, the definition is inferred by lexicographers from examples of how it is used in real life, and typically is not precise anyway. Also, if you ask someone for a definition of a word they know well, they will generally try to construct one on the spot, and often it won't cover all the uses that they themseves would recognize upon consideration. Usage is king, and definitions are secondary. This is a point that Wittgenstein is famous for, but lexicographers already knew it, I think.
However, for some technical terminology, a very specific definition has been constructed. For those terms, using them at all may suggest you are familiar with the technical definition, and so perhaps you can't really use them correctly if you don't know the definition. But, even then, it might fine if you just know enough to be sure you are pointing at the right class of objects.
Added later: I'm going to make this answer a little woolier by talking about the specific example. In the specific case of trying to show that all Xs are Ys, you often do need to establish definitions for X and Y. If you are even having to have that discussion, there probably isn't an agreed-upon definition for each, so you have to give the definitions you want to use. Are embryos organisms? Well, it depends on what you mean by "organism".
In some cases, though, it's easier to know that all Xs are Ys than it is to come up with a definition for either. I can tell you for sure that all chairs are furniture, but don't ask me to give you a precise definition for either category.
You can probably get by with dictionary definitions for most words but, as Jacques Derrida observed, some words have become overladen with so many historical meanings and interpretations that they have become imprecise. He called these 'transcendental signifiers', signs that can't actually refer to anything specific any more because the signified thing has become indeterminate.
In Gayatri Spivak's preface to Derrida's Of Grammatology (1967), (page xxi) she quotes Derrida:
The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies.18 Its matrix — if you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being so elliptical in order to bring me more quickly to my principal theme — is the determination of being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence — eidos, archè, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth. (L'écriture et la différence 410-11, The Structuralist Controversy 249)
- Here Derrida's often implicit Freudianism surfaces. The history of metaphysics, like a dream-neurosis-psychosis, is constituted by distortion. Metaphor and metonymy are rhetorical translations of "condensation" and "displacement," two major techniques, as Freud pointed out, of dream-distortion (see also page xlvi).
Yes, you need to be familiar with the meaning of a word to apply it correctly, leaving aside the possibility that you might apply it by informed guesswork. However, an exact definition is rarely available and even more rarely necessary.
Words mean what people take them to mean. Lexicographers spend most of their time trying to keep track of current usage and modifying definitions accordingly, rather than holding the line on established definitions.
What is meant by "knowing exactly"? But, no, one needn't be familiar with a lexical definition if one has a general sense of meaning. For instance, you might know a 'chalet' is a building and little else, and therefore, when you read "The couples were enjoying their time at the chalet", you have a general understanding of the sentence. The more you know about chalets, then the more construction will make sense. "The type of chalet in Tyrol is reflective of the history for the region," makes sense more if you know both 'chalet' and 'Tyrol' which provide additional context.
No.
For many words there is no complete definition available. When people speak and listen it's generally without any reference definitions. Definitions are written after the fact by lexicographers, and usually aim only to approximate the meanings of words.
In general to know if someone is speaking truthfully or not you only need to know what they mean by the word in that particular context. You don't need a full definition, you only need to know the part of the meaning that's relevant.
If you're trying to evaluate a claim as just a string of letters or sounds, not what a particular person is saying in a context where you might be able to ask what they meant exactly, then if there is no mutually agreed definition of the word that's precise enough to enable evaluating the claim then you'd have to conclude that its not a true statement or a false statement but just an ambiguous statement.
It may be that the claim "embryos are organisms" is not meant as a factual claim about the world, but more as moral claim about how one should define and use the word organism. In that case its again neither true or false but something you might support or oppose on moral grounds.
The clearest examples of the abswer being no are from mathematics. Euclid’s Fifth Postulate by the book was:
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that are less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
Since this is inelegant, modern mathematicians often use and teach some other version of the axiom that was proven equivalent to Euclid’s Fifth Postulate in modern times, such as Playfair’s Parallel Postulate:
In a plane, given a line and a point not on it, at most one line parallel to the given line can be drawn through the point
I remember learning that a geometry (which satisfies Euclid’s other four axioms) where no parallel lines can be drawn through the point is elliptical, a geometry where one unique parallel line can be drawn through the point is Euclidean, and a geometry where more than one parallel line can be drawn through the point is hyperbolic.
If a student walks out of class thinking that this equivalent axiom is “Euclid’s Fifth Postulate,” and uses it in a proof that a geometry is Euclidean, that proof is sound and correctly shows that Euclid’s postulates apply to the geometry the student was investigating. Yet the student had no idea what Euclid’s Fifth Postulate, and therefore the definition of “Euclidean Geometry,” even is!
I was just wondering whether it was necessary to lay out the full definition of a word in order to competently apply it to things, or to know it applies to things.
Words and their meanings are defined by dictionaries. However most people do not use dictionaries to communicate with each other in tgeir daily life. They learn the meaning through their engagement with the society that language is used in.
There is a proviso: in specialist fields, a significant fraction of people will have devoted a significant fraction of tgeir time to learn the jargon of their field. Here, it is important to more precisely define terms. Nevertheless, when fluency is reached the full definition is not usually laid out as it is assumed to be within textbooks that the people on that field take to be their standard references. This goes for music and maths as well as many other fields.
For example, "embryos are organisms", do you need to know the exact definition of "organism" to know that claim is true?
No, you just need to know roughly what it means. Other similar statements such as "tomatoes are fruits" rely on what fruits technically mean. But even here the usual position that tomatoes are vegetables can be argued for, quite strongly in my view, because of their use-value in food preparation.
One might get lucky, and without knowing correct definitions, still produce a true statement/premise.
But typically, yes. Accurate knowledge of exact definitions is best.
Philosophy prof said...
"Successful communication is the successful transmission and successful receipt and interpretation of a concept or series of concepts"
... if received transmission is misinterpreted due to definition confusion, successful receipt does not occur.
... if successful receipt does not occur, communications has not occurred.
It may be worth noting that because some words have more than one valid definition, there are times when context matters... the word "set" for example has a couple of hundred recorded definitions... when using "set"... the context differentiates between...
And it may be worth noting that the accepted recorded common usage of a word in a language can vary from one country which uses it, to another. Looking up "gender" in American dictionaries, and European English Dictionaries can yield different definitions.
And it may ne worth noting that the accepted recorded common usage of a word in a language can vary with time, and if interpreted using definitions from the wrong era, can lead to invalid interpretation.
So sometimes... for correct interpretation, one must know... what was said, where it was said, when it was said, and the correct definitions of the used words, when said in that place at that time.
Sorry it ain't simpler.
