If there was something that everyone agreed was xyblz, …
Fixed that for you.
That’s almost exactly the sort of answer I expected, except I don’t see how it fixes anything.
If the definition consists of nothing but the observation that people agree, then it provides information about people, not the ostensible subject.
Depends on what we know in the beginning. If we knew the opinions of people, then it provides an information about the meaning of the word. This is the way how language is learned in the childhood—by observing what meaning other people attach to words. Even much later we learn to employ dictionaries and strict definitions.
If you define “red” as “whatever everyone agrees is red”, it is for most people and everyday purposes more informative than the definition “emitting light of wavelength about 700 nm”, and the definitions are practically equivalent. The difference is that we use a representative sample of population instead of a double-slit experimental setting.
If there was something that everyone agreed was xyblz, …
Fixed that for you.
That’s almost exactly the sort of answer I expected, except I don’t see how it fixes anything.
If the definition consists of nothing but the observation that people agree, then it provides information about people, not the ostensible subject.
Depends on what we know in the beginning. If we knew the opinions of people, then it provides an information about the meaning of the word. This is the way how language is learned in the childhood—by observing what meaning other people attach to words. Even much later we learn to employ dictionaries and strict definitions.
If you define “red” as “whatever everyone agrees is red”, it is for most people and everyday purposes more informative than the definition “emitting light of wavelength about 700 nm”, and the definitions are practically equivalent. The difference is that we use a representative sample of population instead of a double-slit experimental setting.