Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:


examples and definitions
Which should we start from? The definition or the example?

printPrint


examples and definitions
alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 36
Posted 04/20/08 - 10:31 AM:
Subject: examples and definitions
quote post
#1
Lets say we are attempting to define what is good and what things are good.
Should we take things that are good and use what is common among them to form a definition of good or should we form a definition of good and label anything that fits the definition of good as something that is good? Is one way of defining and lableing things better then the other? If so why? Are there anyother ways to go about this? If there is then how?

The problem with starting with a defintions seems to occur when there are those things that don't fit the definition but still for some seem good to my intuition. Is this a problem with my intuition or my definition? Maybe my intution is just clinging to my older definitions even though the new definition is correct.

By using the word good I in know way intend to start a discussion about ethics I am just using good as an example because it seems to work best.
Brian Bosse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 29, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 22
Posted 04/20/08 - 04:14 PM:
quote post
#2
Hello Alliop,

Should we take things that are good and use what is common among them to form a definition of good...


It seems problematic to me that in order to know what objects belong to the set called 'good' we must already know in some sense what makes something good. Otherwise, we have no basis to make distinctions as to what objects belong in the set and as to what objects do not belong in the set.

In spite of the above objection, this approach is probably what is most often used. Consider, for example, the field of epsitemology and the attempt to come up with a clear definition of knowledge. Some definitions have been rejected on the basis that the proposed definition precludes some things that we consider knowledge and includes some things we do not think is knowledge. As you can see, to make this judgment we must already have some idea as to what knowledge is.

...or should we form a definition of good and label anything that fits the definition of good as something that is good?


If applied consistently, this would make things very explicit. However, it does not correspond well to human experience.

The problem with starting with a defintions seems to occur when there are those things that don't fit the definition but still for some seem good to my intuition.


This is a good point.

Is this a problem with my intuition or my definition?


This depends on the circumstance. If you are using a strictly formal system, then there is no interpretation and everything follows from the axioms (defintions) and rules of inference. However, when someone attaches an interpretation to the system (models), then things are different. If the model does not correspond to what you are trying to capture (that which you know intuitively perhaps), then adjustment of the definitions (axioms) may be called for. However, it may be that the axioms are good and that the non-intuitive results are correct.

Brian
alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 36
Posted 04/20/08 - 05:53 PM:
quote post
#3
Brian Bosse wrote:
Hello Alliop,



It seems problematic to me that in order to know what objects belong to the set called 'good' we must already know in some sense what makes something good. Otherwise, we have no basis to make distinctions as to what objects belong in the set and as to what objects do not belong in the set.

In spite of the above objection, this approach is probably what is most often used. Consider, for example, the field of epsitemology and the attempt to come up with a clear definition of knowledge. Some definitions have been rejected on the basis that the proposed definition precludes some things that we consider knowledge and includes some things we do not think is knowledge. As you can see, to make this judgment we must already have some idea as to what knowledge is.



If applied consistently, this would make things very explicit. However, it does not correspond well to human experience.



This is a good point.



This depends on the circumstance. If you are using a strictly formal system, then there is no interpretation and everything follows from the axioms (defintions) and rules of inference. However, when someone attaches an interpretation to the system (models), then things are different. If the model does not correspond to what you are trying to capture (that which you know intuitively perhaps), then adjustment of the definitions (axioms) may be called for. However, it may be that the axioms are good and that the non-intuitive results are correct.

Brian

So is there a way to tell the diference between when your axioms need adjusting and when the non-untuitive results are correct or is it just something you have to geuss at?

You have been very helpful.

Download thread as


You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

Contact the Administration

Powered by WSN Forum

19 total queries
This page was created in 1.31 seconds
Memory used: 6420052 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 95 days, 19:45, load average: 1.08, 0.90, 0.79