Definitions Derby

Hold to nothing too violently.  Every fool stands convinced: and everyone convinced is a fool; and the faultier a man's judgment, the firmer his conviction; even with the proof on your side, it is well to make concession; for your reasons are known and your gentlemanliness is recognized; ... .  Gracian #183

George Rebane

In these pages we have sought, so far with limited success, to make our discussions and debates semantically crisper by using well-defined terms, and editing these definitions as necessary to capture the more nuanced meanings intended.  For example, many keyboards have been pounded over the years debating the definitions and the subsequent uses of socio-political labels such as socialist, communist, capitalist, liberal, progressive, conservative, conservetarian, etc.  The resulting definition derbies seem always to revolve around how attribute comprehensive should the labeled thing be before its assigned label is accepted.

Most people will accept a label such as ‘socialist’ or ‘conservative’ if the person, program, or policy can claim some sufficient number of attributes to unambiguously indicate its membership in the labeled class.  As an example, a policy can safely be called socialist if it expands state’s control of the means of production or mandates market-blind distribution of goods, wealth, etc.  Such common usage doesn’t call for implementing all (i.e. the comprehensive set) of the attributes of socialism.  In short, a useful discourse can be had if the parties either understand each other’s use of a label, or accept a working principle that doesn’t make ‘comprehensive’ the enemy of ‘sufficient’.

Debating definitions can also serve agendas, especially if you determine that your ideology must be sold carefully to broader audiences (e.g. your lightly-read constituencies).  In such cases you don’t want to reveal the complete picture too soon because your audience will then balk.  In these times such has been the case when collectivists of various shades want to hide behind easy-to-embrace social give-aways without going into the details of what it will take to sustain such transfer payments, or if sustainability is even possible.

So, when you believe in a future in which the state controls more than less of our property and behaviors, a future where markets are greatly curtailed or completely eliminated by state mandated distribution policies, then you don’t want to advertise that too early, even if you believe that such a system will ultimately provide the greatest good to the greatest number.  In that case you will decry the socialist label being prematurely attached to policies that are at best camouflaged in half-way houses on the road to socialism.  You then will argue in favor of the comprehensive definition, and dismiss any sufficient characterization of socialism that doesn’t check off all the dictionary items listed under socialism – ‘my policy doesn’t call for the elimination of all markets, therefore it is not socialism.’

With comprehensive definitions suppressing the merely sufficient, the debate’s progress will be successfully stifled until the destination is achieved at which time it will be revealed when all of its features or attributes are in place.  In such a forum, one is not allowed to identify himself, say, as a conservative unless he can check off somebody’s complete list of requirements for a conservative.  The same for a ‘free market’ which is then defined as one that is not allowed to have even a smidgen of regulations under which it must operate.  Or the obverse, mandating the ‘free market’ label when a massively regulated market still has a bit of wiggle room left.  It all depends on your agenda.

Quite often definitions are given in terms of an overarching concept that can stand on its own, but can be expanded to have one or more appended categorical components.  We recently ran into one such term – ‘collusion’ – that is much in the news these days, and forms the crux of an enlarged debate that is attended by participants all wearing ideologically colored glasses.  To illustrate, for the Right ‘collusion’ is seen simply as two or more parties proceeding in confidence to accomplish some end, be it innocent or evil.  The latter being the addended categorical component.  To pursue its current agenda, the Left can only view ‘collusion’ in terms of its categorical component of ‘evil’ firmly clamped to the overarching definition, with the attendant logic that colluding secretly or in confidence must always and necessarily be evil – no further proof is needed. (more here)

Unfortunately, such definition derbies often lap over to embrace countless faulty logics so prevalent in the comment streams of most blogs including RR’s.  The preceding semantical gymnastics are usually part of a drill that starts by characterizing everything in black/white or binary terms.  If you don’t explicitly condemn/embrace something, then the clear conclusion is that you must love/hate that same thing.  This is the most common and ham-brained way of rejecting the cautionary wisdom that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Related to this is the so-called ‘argument from ignorance’, so popular today, wherein one ‘asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false’.  Both appeal to the same logical fallacy.

In my experience, also confirmed in these pages, it is overwhelmingly the folks on the Left who don’t want to be explicit about what they actually believe (i.e. the tenets of their credo), and consequently in a debate they sail under false colors as long as possible, and then simply quit the field when such colors no longer serve.  I have yet to meet a person of the Right who, when asked, hesitates to declare the underlying tenet of his credo that gives basis for his argument on an issue.  Perhaps others have had the same experience.

(Readers may always examine my credo and glossary of terms so as to correct or confirm that my own apologetics conform to my previously stated beliefs.)

 

Comments

[jon smith]

". . . .wherein one ‘asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false’. Both appeal to the same logical fallacy.

Please explain the logic behind religion. To date no one has "proven" any one religion to be true. Religions are founded on faith and with every faith there is an elemental assertion that "it is true because it has not yet been proven false."

[George Rebane]

jons 502pm - Not sure of your point; perhaps you didn't understand the commentary. Re religions - these systems of belief have never succumbed to logic, but only utility. To the faithful they paint a plausible cosmology that is best enjoyed without too much critical examination.

[Walt]

You don't want to "believe" jon? That's your business.(unless your in Muslim land) You have the right "no to" here in the good ol' U.S. of A.(for now)
What's up? Take issue with Christmas?

[Bonnie McGuire]

Was it Ben Franklin who commented that the way a person thinks is their religion? There are many religious organizations where those with similar minds (regarding spiritual attributes) gather together. Christianity has many different churches that reflect their focus on specific interpretation of biblical scripture...When one of his desciples complained that someone else was healing in Christ's name, he said it was okay cuz those for him weren't against him. His teachings are beautiful common sense showing the way to a better life and world. It's up to the individual to choose what kind of person and life they want. We're wonderful creations living in a magnificent seen and unseen universe waiting for each of us to experience.

[jon smith]

GR 5:18
VERY good explanation and quite a thoughtful response. Yours is likely the most frank and honest reply I've ever heard from a believer. Thank you.

Walt- I was raised in a Christian household. Much of my youth was spent in Ireland where sects of Christianity are taught and practiced with a ferocity you wouldn't begin to understand. The experience(s) left me appalled and with the belief that no one's God is any better than another's. God is not benevolent if his teachings incite the violence I experienced and have witnessed around the world since. Neither Christians or Muslims have a lock on the practice of partisan politics, greed and non benevolence.

BTW- I enjoy Christmas; the way it is practiced in Europe - simple greetings, family dinners, prayers of thanks and maybe a simple gift such as a baked pie or a knitted sweater. You can take the American version of the "holiday $pirit" and flush it down the sewer.

[Account Deleted]

J smith 6:29 - "God is not benevolent if his teachings incite the violence..."
There is no Christian teaching that incites violence.
There are hypocrites and phonies all the way up to the pope man and and all the way down to the local Bible-thumping loud mouth that beds half the women in the congregation.
They are not Christian teaching. Please read the Bible and try to find where Christ told his followers to act violently towards others.
I'm sorry you had to grow up around folks that didn't, couldn't or wouldn't follow the teachings of Christ.
Please try to put the blame where it belongs. That may involve folks very close to you, but it doesn't lay any fault with Christ or his teachings.

[Bill Tozer]

jon smith @ 5:02 pm.

Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
——Rule #4, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

The above quote can be applied to just about any group, or anyone who considers themselves associated with any political label. For example, the most outspoken anarchist may be the first to sign up for food stamps.

I throughly enjoyed these words Dr. Rebane penned.

“......The preceding semantical gymnastics are usually part of a drill that starts by characterizing everything in black/white or binary terms. If you don’t explicitly condemn/embrace something, then the clear conclusion is that you must love/hate that same thing. This is the most common and ham-brained way of rejecting the cautionary wisdom that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Related to this is the so-called ‘argument from ignorance’, so popular today, wherein one ‘asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false’. Both appeal to the same logical fallacy.”

It’s this black and white world here on RR by a limited few posters (thank goodness) that gets my goat. Example: The Russian Embassy in DC, knowing full well they were being bugged and monitored 24/7, cheered when Trump won. If I do not agree that is proof that the Russians hacked the election for Trump, then it means I love Putin. Nevermind the Russians are masters of disinformation, do everything methodical, and chances are they would have cheered if Hillary would have won, both scenarios staged for the listener on the other end of the wire to serve Russia’s own self interests.

Another example is Roy Moore. Some here have not condemned him nor defended the man. Some have a wait and see attitude, especially concerning accusations surfacing in the closing days of a heated election that happened 38-40 years ago when memory clouds the mind, coming to surface only after the Judge served in the state legislature, DA’s office, and being elected twice to the State Supreme Court over a 40 year career. That silence means to the black and white mind that the silent ones support unwanted sexual advances on the fairer sex, or worse, condones child predators. It’s the debate tactic Punchy uses ad nauseam. No, it’s not all black and white. There are absolutes, mostly ideals in a very pragmatic imperfect world that none of us can live up to, no matter how great the desire or intentions.. Talk about painting with the broad brush, lol.

One of my favorite sayings goes along these lines: Saying there are no absolutes is in and of itself an absolute statement. Yeah, she said she would love me forever. That did not work out. She is a liar!! And if you don’t agree with me, you condone lying.:)

Oh, the definitions derby.