You’ve basically come up with four criteria that describe the use of the word “signal” in a highly specific context—traits that exist for pure signalling purposes in evolution or game theory—and then decided, arbitrarily, that this is the one true meaning of “signal.” I do not think you have provided adequate evidence or argument to back this claim up.
Aren’t you arguing over definitions here? If he had defined a wholly new term as having that meaning, would your objections still apply?
I hadn’t actually read the OP, but it seems like proposing a formal definition of a term being used is rather different to attacking an opponents use of a term on the basis that they haven’t provided “adequate evidence or argument” that their definition is the “one true meaning of ‘signal.’”
My objections would indeed not apply if a new term were used. You can define a new term however you like; that’s the point of making a new term. You can’t just declare that a commonly used term has a specific meaning without providing some justification for abandoning its other existing meanings.
If I wanted to argue that the definition of “bachelor” is “an unmarried man,” I could do so rather easily, by citing this for example. If I were arguing over what counts as “theft,” I could offer an argument as to why a particular act should or should not fit under the general definition. An argument like the OP’s could theoretically include evidence (of common usage, of confusion, etc.) or argumentation, but the OP’s post does not really seem to do this. It declares, “The definition should be X” and then rejects certain usages as not fitting the definition. If you’re using an extremely common word like “signaling,” you don’t get to arbitrarily redefine it.
If you’re using an extremely common word like “signaling,” you don’t get to arbitrarily redefine it.
I’m not totally against redefining, or introducing a technical meaning for a common word that is used in some discipline, but doing that and then complaining about how other people are misusing the word is too much.
It’s a word. It means whatever we agree it means. If he wants to introduce a new, ore precise set of criteria for calling something a “signal” then he’s welcome to. However, reading the OP, he seems to think his definition is the only acceptable one, which is clearly nonsense.
Aren’t you arguing over definitions here? If he had defined a wholly new term as having that meaning, would your objections still apply?
You did realize that the OP is an argument about definitions, and thus a response that continues that argument is spot-on, right?
I hadn’t actually read the OP, but it seems like proposing a formal definition of a term being used is rather different to attacking an opponents use of a term on the basis that they haven’t provided “adequate evidence or argument” that their definition is the “one true meaning of ‘signal.’”
My objections would indeed not apply if a new term were used. You can define a new term however you like; that’s the point of making a new term. You can’t just declare that a commonly used term has a specific meaning without providing some justification for abandoning its other existing meanings.
If I wanted to argue that the definition of “bachelor” is “an unmarried man,” I could do so rather easily, by citing this for example. If I were arguing over what counts as “theft,” I could offer an argument as to why a particular act should or should not fit under the general definition. An argument like the OP’s could theoretically include evidence (of common usage, of confusion, etc.) or argumentation, but the OP’s post does not really seem to do this. It declares, “The definition should be X” and then rejects certain usages as not fitting the definition. If you’re using an extremely common word like “signaling,” you don’t get to arbitrarily redefine it.
I’m not totally against redefining, or introducing a technical meaning for a common word that is used in some discipline, but doing that and then complaining about how other people are misusing the word is too much.
It’s a word. It means whatever we agree it means. If he wants to introduce a new, ore precise set of criteria for calling something a “signal” then he’s welcome to. However, reading the OP, he seems to think his definition is the only acceptable one, which is clearly nonsense.
EDIT: ninja’d by HalMorris