The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options answers only user 5381
2
votes
This is called equivocation. See: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
answered May 4 '15 by virmaior
2
votes
There's a problem with a purely arbitrary approach to the meaning of every word. In other words, on a certain "Wittgensteinian" level, there are rules to this language game. That's not a complete d …
answered Feb 12 '16 by virmaior
1
vote
Perfect Definitions are Necessary First, it's far from obvious that we must always have a "exact definition of 'X'" before we can debate X's existence. It's easy to show why with a reductio. (1 … . Incompatible with other features of metaphysics = an object that has no energy or mass (defies the definitions of energy and mass and how we understand them to work). Presumably, the nihilist takes …
answered Aug 28 '15 by virmaior
0
votes
This seems to just be a telescoping problem of frame. On a certain level, everything can be called "arbitrary" but then on a level of analysis where certain things are assumed, these same things are n …
answered Dec 21 '16 by virmaior
4
votes
A lot of this hinges on what one takes to be a 'religion'. The term is not actually all that old in its current usage. (This is one reason why Japanese people imagine that they are not religious - 無宗教 …
answered Sep 19 '14 by virmaior
4
votes
wikipedia articles in English and German are helpful here. One thing that muddles things even more is that the definitions I'm giving you above are some light off-the-cuff definitions coming from …
answered Apr 12 '18 by virmaior
6
votes
I wouldn't say there are "widely accepted (precise) definitions" for the two terms you mention. I would say there are several different well-known accounts that deal with relationship. The first one …
answered Jul 10 '14 by virmaior
2
votes
Contrary to your hope, I don't think this will inspire a large number of divergent answers (I suppose for researchers on the topic of explanation there is a lot of room to disagree about the nitty-gri …
answered Jun 4 by virmaior
1
vote
The answer to your question hinges entirely on whether we take certain words to already contain moral judgments. There's been some work on this recently, but much of it can be traced back to GEM Ansco …
answered Nov 8 '16 by virmaior
3
votes
An argument that contains an inconsistent definition is guilty of "equivocation" because it fails to use the same term with the same meaning throughout. This is a type of "informal fallacy" because di …
answered Dec 31 '15 by virmaior