Arguing semantics

[Chiki]

I've come across this many times here from many different people. Do you think it's worthwhile to discuss semantics in a debate?

The first and most important thing you learn in any intro philosophy course is how important semantics and definitions are.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

But I don't think people here agree. Why is that?

[Phoenix Wright]

in formal debates, sure. i'm simply not interested in it. it bores me.

[CT075]

i would argue that in the context of philosophy and related (for an example more close to home, discussing the semantics of the term "efficiency" or whatever) it's very productive

but if it's just about the specific phrasing of a sentence or a certain word choice or something similarly irrelevant then yes, i would say it's pointless

[Samias]

Some things in an argument need to be clearly defined. If you are arguing about semantics and can't come to agreement on what that word means pertaining to your original argument, the discussion becomes circular and comes to a standstill. I personally believe it weakens an argument if you've been given a topic and have someone argue against you by completely changing the meaning of their original statement because they couldn't immediately clarify their position. Sometimes it's an honest mistake, but it's also a baiting tactic to undermine the position of arguments set forth.

Discussing the semantics of a word on its own before you try to construct an argument using uncertain terms is more productive.

[Redwall]

OK, so there's a word (call it "blob") with a more pedantic definition and a separate looser one, and persons A and B are arguing, with the latter getting frustrated with A's quibbling over semantics. Several possibilities come to mind.

B's argument is not dependent on the differences between the two definitions; her argument holds either way. B is likely annoyed at what she perceives as either A trying to weasel out of the discussion by bringing up things she sees as inconsequential to the outcome of the debate, or she is annoyed that A simply understand why B's argument is independent of the differences.

Alternatively, B could be frustrated that A's semantic definition is consequential, and gets frustrated because she doesn't want to lose the debate.

[eclipse]

This will be my only relevant post to the topic:

If the semantics argument eclipses the issue that was being debated, it means that both sides failed miserably. It takes two to argue. Don't argue the small things and miss sight of the target.

I can see the potential for this topic to get out of hand. So far, you guys are keeping it cool. If I feel this topic wanders too far from its purpose, I'll close it.

[deleted35362]

If the semantics argument eclipses

oh you~ =p

as for arguing semantics...i guess it can be worthwhile? at least in a situation where the argument calls for the parties to consider the semantics of others...? if that makes sense...sorta like "this guy thinks this way, so lets think about his rationalization for his actions". something like that.

[Elieson]

Absolutely it's a legit argument. Semantics arguments are what define abstract definitions like "difficult" and "easy", as well as create definitions for terms like "reliable" and "likely".

If someone is makin an argument on something being superior, (say, taking the highway vs taking back roads), and someone declares one as "easier", then said word needs clarity before continuing the argument.

Arguably, a semantics debate then would've just started before the topic at hand, but people typically don't come up with ideas to discuss words like "reliable", "efficient", etc. They typically have their own idea of say, "efficiency", and initiate a discussion using that as their medium.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Elieson

[Rehab]

*says something*

"And by '___' you mean 'xxxxx?'"

"No, I mean 'yyyyy'"

"But when you say '___', what you're really communicating is xxxxx'"

"Okay, but my point is 'yyyyy'"

"But you said 'xxxxx'"

Thbbbbbbbbbbpt.

Semantics feels like a chore that is unfortunately sometimes necessary to get out of the way.

If the semantics argument eclipses the issue that was being debated, it means that both sides failed miserably. It takes two to argue. Don't argue the small things and miss sight of the target.

miserably.

I've come across this many times here from many different people. Do you think it's worthwhile to discuss semantics in a debate?

The first and most important thing you learn in any intro philosophy course is how important semantics and definitions are.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

But I don't think people here agree. Why is that?

Maybe for you. That's not even close to the most important thing I got from my Intro to Philosophy course.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Rehab

[Original Alear]

Arguing semantics is often necessary to clearing up a misunderstanding. Sometimes two people mean different things with fairly similar word choices.

Also as per Boney's comment, Eclipse is a pro.

[Chiki]

Maybe for you. That's not even close to the most important thing I got from my Intro to Philosophy course.

It might depend on what kind of philosophy you learn. The one most commonly taught nowadays, analytic philosophy, is pretty much defined as philosophy which gives importance to definitions:

A broad philosophical tradition characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument

Arguing semantics is pretty much clarity.

[Rehab]

My course focused on thinking about the nature of the world (metaphysics), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and what values to live by (axiology). Along the way, we talked about what famous philosophers and schools of thought had and have to say about important (or what they believed to be important, at least) aspects of life, and what they may have overlooked, that kind of thing. I don't think we had a single chapter or unit devoted to semantics. To me, that sounds more in line with my school's argumentative writing English course, like how ideas are presented, as opposed to "a love of learning/knowledge."

Edited August 17, 2013 by Rehab

[Chiki]

My course focused on thinking about the nature of the world (metaphysics), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and what values to live by (axiology). Along the way, we talked about what famous philosophers and schools of thought had and have to say about important (or what they believed to be important, at least) aspects of life, and what they may have overlooked, that kind of thing. I don't think we had a single chapter or unit devoted to semantics. To me, that sounds more in line with my school's argumentative writing English course, like how ideas are presented, as opposed to "a love of learning/knowledge."

Huh, I've never even heard of axiology. Maybe it's something different.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

This may just be a coincidence, but my school's "Intro to Logic" course is very similar to what you're describing, Olwen, while my school's "Intro to Philosophy" resembles more closely to Rehab's class.

Perhaps you may be talking about an introductory logic course, and not an introductory philosophy course?

[Chiki]

This may just be a coincidence, but my school's "Intro to Logic" course is very similar to what you're describing, Olwen, while my school's "Intro to Philosophy" resembles more closely to Rehab's class.

Perhaps you may be talking about an introductory logic course, and not an introductory philosophy course?

I'm an intro to logic course tutor and I've never taught anything about definitions in the course. All I teach is the formal language. Though I did learn about them in my intro to philosophy course.

[Celice]

I'm an intro to logic course tutor and I've never taught anything about definitions in the course. All I teach is the formal language. Though I did learn about them in my intro to philosophy course.

With a basis in analytics, most intro to phil courses are concerned with students' comprehension of the formal language, with some short, broad overlooks of other current fields of study (epistemic and metaphysic discussion does seem popular nowadays, as it follows into discussions about phil of mind and language, and such).

Discussion of semantic language were often littered across various upper-div courses, such as linguistic, metaethic, and referential courses. In my experience, at least.

Most schools, but to a larger degree most professors, decide on what to teach in their courses, accounting for the differences people have mentioned so far. It's a rather arbitrary affair, actually.

[Chiki]

With a basis in analytics, most intro to phil courses are concerned with students' comprehension of the formal language

What do you mean by formal language? This:

1) Cats are carnivores

2) Dogs are carnivores

---

3) Cats are dogs

Or

1) ∀x(C1x > C2x)

2) ∀x(Dx > C2x)

---

3) ∀x(C1x > Dx)

If the first one, then that's pretty much what I'm talking about that is taught.

[Celice]

The latter. I think you're going over what a basic argument would be in the former. Although, some use formal and symbolic logic interchangeably to refer to the latter.

That's semantics for you, after all.

[nflchamp]

What do you mean by formal language? This:

1) Cats are carnivores

2) Dogs are carnivores

---

3) Cats are dogs

Or

1) ∀x(C1x > C2x)

2) ∀x(Dx > C2x)

---

3) ∀x(C1x > Dx)

If the first one, then that's pretty much what I'm talking about that is taught.

And that's straight up logic, not philosophy.

[Phoenix Wright]

yeah, to the layman (for lack of a better word here), those both just look like simple syllogisms. from someone who has never taken a course in logic or philosophy, knowledge comes from pretty much just reading i've done on my own, what is the difference between the two of those statements?

[Chiki]

The latter. I think you're going over what a basic argument would be in the former. Although, some use formal and symbolic logic interchangeably to refer to the latter.

That's semantics for you, after all.

I find it hard to believe the latter is taught in most intro to phil courses. I just glanced at every single intro to phil course my uni has offered, each from different instructors, and not in any one of them is formal logic taught. Instead, they teach people how to make define terms, make premises, and make a solid argument, just like what I mentioned in my first post.

yeah, to the layman (for lack of a better word here), those both just look like simple syllogisms. from someone who has never taken a course in logic or philosophy, knowledge comes from pretty much just reading i've done on my own, what is the difference between the two of those statements?

They both mean pretty much the same thing, but they're just in different languages. The latter one says:

1) For any x, if x is a cat, then x is a carnivore.

2) For any x, if x is a dog, then x is a carnivore.

---

3) For any x, if x is a cat, then x is a dog.

It's a very autistic way of saying the first one.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Chiki

[Djeets]

whanever i heard two people were debating two claims that contradicts each other, i always think that the answer is always neither of them were correct, it's just that nor sides want to agree each other and just keep spamming words and debate won't end..

philosophy is funny... you can debate all you like and sooner or later, you'll finally realized your just looping around the whole time and the answer was already found at the beginning...

Edited August 18, 2013 by Pukuriripo

[Blademaster!]

Arguing semantics is very important in terms of law and other legal related things since legal debates are essentially just arguments about semantics, but in more casual conversations it depends on the topic otherwise you're very likely just busting someone's balls for almost no real reason. Take anime for example. Shounen and moe are likely the two most abused words in the community which cause semantic arguments quite often because the way people use them as words is just flat out wrong and shows ignorance or contradiction.

[Phoenix Wright]

philosophy is funny... you can debate all you like and sooner or later, you'll finally realized your just looping around the whole time and the answer was already found at the beginning...

if my understanding is correct, philosophy is much more about the general discussion of ideas and less about finding the correct answer to a question or solution to a problem.

[Chiki]

if my understanding is correct, philosophy is much more about the general discussion of ideas and less about finding the correct answer to a question or solution to a problem.

No way! Even Wikipedia defines it as the study of problems. Such as the trolley problem.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems

I'd say it's the most important subject. What isn't more important than figuring out the right thing to do in important situations?