Yes, nothing much new for LW readers (since it’s mostly covered by the “human guide to words” sequence), but still important point to re-harsh, and get people to read even if they are scared by the sequences. It’s so painful to argue with someone who thinks words are precisely defined as Aristotle classes, and say things like “I’ve nothing against gay couples, but gay marriage is just impossible by definition”. And yet when asked “what is a mother ?” they’ll answer “someone who gave birth to a child” and when asked “what about adoption ?” and then they”ll revise their definition… Or when asked “what is a bird ?” they’ll answer “something with feathers that flies”, and when pointed to penguins, they’ll revise their definition…
Lots of pointless arguments would be saved if more people were aware that words are fuzzy boundaries, not precise definitions (unless you’re working in a very formal science, like maths).
Yes, nothing much new for LW readers (since it’s mostly covered by the “human guide to words” sequence), but still important point to re-harsh, and get people to read even if they are scared by the sequences. It’s so painful to argue with someone who thinks words are precisely defined as Aristotle classes, and say things like “I’ve nothing against gay couples, but gay marriage is just impossible by definition”. And yet when asked “what is a mother ?” they’ll answer “someone who gave birth to a child” and when asked “what about adoption ?” and then they”ll revise their definition… Or when asked “what is a bird ?” they’ll answer “something with feathers that flies”, and when pointed to penguins, they’ll revise their definition…
Lots of pointless arguments would be saved if more people were aware that words are fuzzy boundaries, not precise definitions (unless you’re working in a very formal science, like maths).