I feel like there is a continuing trend in discussions, in particular AronRa's since he focuses on establishing definitions first. An attempt to establish concise definitions is met by the creationist argueing that using these definitions isn't fair and then stalling the discussion by arguing about using the concise definitions. At the same time AronRa is offering to correct anything that is actually wrong with the definitions if evidence can be provided that the definitions are wrong. It seems to clutter down the debate with rehashing the same exact thing everytime.
To me it seems like a solution to bypass that cluttering of any discussion about evolution is by having the definition discussion in an ongoing thread in the hopes that a few repeat arguments can be avoided and handled more directly.
So I guess to start this all off;
Why definitions are important in science and these discussions.
The first and most important part is why in science. Simple put a concise clearly defined object makes your target clearly determined and easily identified. Trying to use vague descriptions and imprecise termology allows people to claim a bullseye on anything presented. If you are trying to make anything fit your model than the more vague you make your discription of the model then the easier you can just claim evidence that should contradict your model. Science is a process that only works if your model truely fits the evidence. Making vague models that don't actually describe the events of the world results in an inability to make predictions of outcomes, design new technology within the confines of that model, or even to accurately explain what we really are seeing (including further refining of the model for observations). Science therefore must be done with concise definitions and discriptions that incorperate the growing field of knowledge.
The second part is more why concise definitions are important in these discussions. It basically boils down to the persuasive power of the discussions in two parts, this is a science discussion and false equivocation. As science discussions the only way to decide which party is correct is by how well the respective party's evidence fits the definitions given. It presents clear goalposts for each party to have to clear to demonstrate their respective claims and prevents either party from moving the goalpost unfairly.
With false equivocations it is more the point that both sides know going in what the word is going to mean when used within the discussion, the reader knows, and that neither side is able to later claim that a term means anything other than the agreed meaning.
I hope that maybe after discussing the importance of concise definitions maybe a discussion on AronRa's definitions in particular, though I suspect that many would agree/use similar definitions, can be held where we can see if these definitons are the most precise (or a valid definition to be using) so anyone wishing to use them in that fashion can avoid the cycle of arguement.
-I made two edits for grammatical reasons and to add "(or a valid definition)
To me it seems like a solution to bypass that cluttering of any discussion about evolution is by having the definition discussion in an ongoing thread in the hopes that a few repeat arguments can be avoided and handled more directly.
So I guess to start this all off;
Why definitions are important in science and these discussions.
The first and most important part is why in science. Simple put a concise clearly defined object makes your target clearly determined and easily identified. Trying to use vague descriptions and imprecise termology allows people to claim a bullseye on anything presented. If you are trying to make anything fit your model than the more vague you make your discription of the model then the easier you can just claim evidence that should contradict your model. Science is a process that only works if your model truely fits the evidence. Making vague models that don't actually describe the events of the world results in an inability to make predictions of outcomes, design new technology within the confines of that model, or even to accurately explain what we really are seeing (including further refining of the model for observations). Science therefore must be done with concise definitions and discriptions that incorperate the growing field of knowledge.
The second part is more why concise definitions are important in these discussions. It basically boils down to the persuasive power of the discussions in two parts, this is a science discussion and false equivocation. As science discussions the only way to decide which party is correct is by how well the respective party's evidence fits the definitions given. It presents clear goalposts for each party to have to clear to demonstrate their respective claims and prevents either party from moving the goalpost unfairly.
With false equivocations it is more the point that both sides know going in what the word is going to mean when used within the discussion, the reader knows, and that neither side is able to later claim that a term means anything other than the agreed meaning.
I hope that maybe after discussing the importance of concise definitions maybe a discussion on AronRa's definitions in particular, though I suspect that many would agree/use similar definitions, can be held where we can see if these definitons are the most precise (or a valid definition to be using) so anyone wishing to use them in that fashion can avoid the cycle of arguement.
-I made two edits for grammatical reasons and to add "(or a valid definition)
