Semantics Is The Heart of Debate

[Autolykos]

For all those who think that semantics is not the heart of debate, read this.

I await your comments.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Looks like a good book.

I just added it to the "to get" list for the Library.

Thanks for the link.

Unspeak, Neuspeak, Redefinition.....

Orwell was quite right.

I chuckled last night as I watched the UnHistory Channel, on a show called "the History of Horsepower". They described the "process" of "machining" a "process that involves highly sophisticated computerized equipment to attain given tolerances to machined parts".

The machining process is NOT always done with highly sophisticated computerized equipment, nor is that an "adequate" description in the context used.

Just more of the "Neuspeak" that is circulated so subtly most sheeple won't even notice it, in the long run, changing the entire context of understanding.

[Fonceai]

@Autolykos

Deja vu.

Didn't this discussion come up on IMs once?

[bishop]

people who think that semantics are the heart of debate make me remember reading plato's gorgias.

Gorgias (dialogue) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gorgias is an important dialogue in which Plato sets the rhetorician, whose specialty is persuasion, in opposition to the philosopher, whose specialty is dissuasion, or refutation. The art of persuasion was necessary for political and legal advantage in classical Athens, and rhetoricians promoted themselves as teachers of this fundamental skill. Sophists, or rhetoricians, as they called themselves, charged high fees and strutted about the city like roosters. Some, like Gorgias, were foreigners attracted to Athens because of its reputation for intellectual and cultural sophistication. Socrates' specialty, refutation, is really nothing more than the logical inverse of persuasion. Both persuasion and refutation are opposed to instruction, which concerns the actual facts of the matter.

semantics (or rhetoric) are all style and no substance, and a useless waste of time as far as i'm concerned. even at work, i notice how people get all sorts of hung up over worthless semantical issues, despite the fact that they understand the underlying concept. i always deal with those situations by saying that i don't care what they want to call "it", so long as they understand the concepts behind "it"...

from rob's article, people who just cling to phrases like "pro-life" or "community" (or "liberal" and "conservative") without really understanding the concept behind it are useless when it comes to debate - unless your goal is to simply debate semantics.

[Fonceai]

Not to get into a debate over semantics, but I think those things are more just lazy labeling of people in order to associate them with a commonly understood group instead of getting to know them.

Getting through the semantic stuff is what opens the door to getting into real discussion.

[bishop]

i recently encountered a post directed at me in the "american economy" thread... the thread was very long, and obviously the poster put lots of effort into it - solely to correct me an incorrect statement on my part.

the post didn't need to take up so much space, as i would've conceded my error regardless of its length... it was an oversight on my part - since it's been a long time since i've read any economics ideology/theory and i've forgotten some of each "school's" particulars. i only read current/projected economics reports these days, rather than the old theories.

and at the end of the day, all this person did was correct me on a semantical issue - and didn't contribute one iota to the actual topic at hand. needless to say, the member was even complimented for this "valuable" contribution.

that's just one example of people who get lost in debating semantics over concepts.

[Fonceai]

Interesting.

Maybe "less is more"?

[bishop]

you should always be able to make your point in just a few sentences imo - unless you're explaining a certain issue in detail. i guess some people like the long-winded approach, but not me.. if the person can't get their point across in a couple words, i begin to wonder if that person even has a point to make to begin with. (the longer the post, the more it begins to look like rambling nonsense to me.)

[Fonceai]

Understood. And noted.

[Autolykos]

@Bishop

Semantics cannot be debated. They can either be accepted or rejected.

My point is that, all too often, two people will start to debate a subject and then find out that what's really at issue is a difference in semantics. If one does not agree to the other's semantics, or map them consistently to his own, there can be no further debate.

- Rob

[bishop]

is there a tagible example that you could show to illustrate your point? just to be clear i understand what you're saying...

would this be what you're talking about - a bush supporter (i.e. someone who supports cutting constitutional rights, enlarging government, heavy federal spending, etc.) starts a thread calling himself a "conservative". and then as the thread progresses, the responses simply challenge whether/not that bush supporter is truly "conservative" - a debate that revolves about how you define the term... ?

those sorts of debates occur pretty frequently here, and you can usually spot them by reading the thread's title.. (or from the thread's 1st post.) i usually avoid them like the plague, because to me, semantical debates are pointless and boring.

i also tend to believe that if the underlying concept is identical and shared between the people engaged in debate, then the semantical issues are irrelevant. i also disagree that semantics are the heart of debate - there're solely an onerus hurdle that must occassionally be overcome in order to get to the actual issue being debated.

[Fonceai]

A good example of it is the earlier debates between myself and Auto.

Especially on aggression and force and such.

[Osborn F Enready]

You can't debate anything if the grounds of understanding aren't held to a common measure.

Semantics can make or break an argument.

[pubmanager]

There is a certain irony in the use of a word that is not included in the oxford english dictionary i.e. semantical being used freely and without query in a debate on semantics; relating to meaning in language or logic.

It gave me some amusement anyway.

Perhaps as Osborn said:

Just more of the "Neuspeak" that is circulated so subtly most sheeple won't even notice it, in the long run, changing the entire context of understanding.

Or perhaps another Americanism that we Brits have yet to adopt into "proper english"

[pubmanager]

On a slightly more constructive note I think to my mind that rather than being the "heart of debate", semantics rather are just the start of debate.

The use of concepts and value laden terms allows us to convey complex meaning more simply to others, the arguing over semantics merely allows one to understand the other persons interpretation and position more clearly or precisely.

But this is not constructive debate of issues. Rather it is intellectual jousting for some and a severe embuggerance and a hinderance for others.

It is important to have an understanding of how a concept is being used as this allows for real debate of the issue under discussion. It is not however neccessary to agree on the meaning of a word or term, simply one must understand how it is being used.

To become bogged down with semantic squabbling is often a barrier to meaningful debate.

Having said that, I understand the importance some people place on this area of dicussion and can apprecciate a reluctance, on their part, to enter into debate until the perameters have been ironed out in intricate detail.

Personally I would rather move past (with fleeting admiration and intrigue), the ambiguity and ideosyncratic nature of the english language and paticipate in the debate of issues as best I can.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree overall Pub.

AS you say, knowing HOW the term is being used is critical to competent rebuttal in debate.

If two people are talking about the earth, and one assumes by the word "earth" they are talking about a flat layer, like a piece of bread, and the other person is using it to define a round globe, the debate can go on for days before realizing .... oh, you think the earth is flat?

Understanding context is essential, agreement on context is not.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai A good example of it is the earlier debates between myself and Auto. Especially on aggression and force and such.

It's a good example of a disagreement in semantics. I was perfectly willing to translate my semantics into yours. After successfully demonstrating that my logic still applies using your semantic basis, you simply denied it and disparaged my "limited" (in other words, precise) semantics. That's why the debate stopped, because there was a fundamental disagreement on your part which could not be resolved. And it still isn't.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Aren't we confrontational today?

If you want to restart a topic on it we can try again... I really don't recall all that well, to be honest.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai Aren't we confrontational today?

Yes, we are.

If you want to restart a topic on it we can try again... I really don't recall all that well, to be honest.

We can, if you want. But first we must make sure that we start from a common semantic basis.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

If you're gonna be like this, don't bother. You should know already how it works.

Start the thread and we'll take 2 or 3 posts to get the terms figured out, then we'll discuss.

I'm not gonna play "belligerent asshole" with another member on this thread whose standard mode of behavior is normally very civil and intelligent.