You may be right. I've spoken someone rejecting any form of rationality claiming that only strictly empirical science is valid. As if any of the empirical sciences could exist without the rational approach of logic as in math. — Tomseltje

Empirical science is indeed validated by its pragmatic results in the real world. But Theoretical Science (philosophy) can only be validated if & when it produces practical specific real-world results. Unfortunately, that may be a long time coming. But in the meantime, the theory may be useful as a component of our general understanding of the world. Newton's solar system cosmology was our best theory, until Einstein came along and generalized it --- via math, not experiment --- to the whole universe. :smile:

Theoretical Science : The data serve to suggest the theory, to confirm the theory, to disconfirm the theory, to prove the theory wrong. But these are the tools we use. What interests us is the content of the theory. What interests us is what the theory says about the world.
https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

When definitions change at a certain point in time, there will by definition be multiple definitions in use as some people have picked up the new definition and others haven't (yet) — Tomseltje

Some people think Wittgenstein invalidated the concept of definitions, by noting how definitions vary depending on context. But that's all the more reason to specify your meaning in the current context, and not to just leave the meaning open to all interpretations. :smile:

But that's all the more reason to specify your meaning in the current context, and not to just leave the meaning open to all interpretations. — Gnomon

You mean like when I happen to use the word 'literally' I also have to explain that the way I use the word is not intended as 'figuratively' since the dictionary added the opposite meaning of the old word to it's definition?
Apparently I have to, but I really hate that I have to do it as it takes a lot of time. I used to be able to use the single word 'literally' to refer to what I mean, now I have to add a whole sentence to exclude the opposite meaning of the word.
That is not progress, that is regression. And why? because too many people started to use it as a form of emphasis rather than learning the meaning of the word and using it as such. Just like how the abbreviation of desoxyribonucleinicacid got into the hands of those making commercials who now use it to mean something like the word 'characteristic' while it obviously doesn't have anything to do with the chemical compound it actually refers to since they even go as far as to claim that a certain model of cars "clearly have the DNA of Spyker", unless they chopped op Spyker and put a piece of him in every car produced in that line, it's obviously not a proper usage of the word. But alas we in the west exchanged our visiting church once a week to watching commercials throughout the day every day of the week.

So I partly agree with you. I agree one should be clear on ones intend, and if asked for elaboration it should be provided, but I cannot account for all possible other interpretations of my words that are based on peoples ignorance on how the dictionary of the language they claim to use defines the word. They can ask me for clarification or look it up in the dictionary, or both.
What if among the many people who read my comments there is someone who hasn't learned to count properly and when I mention the number 3 I have to mention that I don't mean any of the other natural numbers, and since the person doesn't know what natural numbers are, I have to list all of them? That would mean I would never get to the end of my sentence.

If it's an argument, the only requirement is that it be valid. Semantics is irrelevant and hence definitions are unnecessary and are stumbling blocks rather than stepping stones. Philosophy isn't philosophy sans arguments! Mic drop! :snicker:

So I partly agree with you. I agree one should be clear on ones intend, and if asked for elaboration it should be provided, but I cannot account for all possible other interpretations of my words that are based on peoples ignorance on how the dictionary of the language they claim to use defines the word. They can ask me for clarification or look it up in the dictionary, or both. — Tomseltje

Unfortunately, relying on standard dictionary definitions ignores the distinction between Semantics (literal meaning) and Semiotics (emotional or contextual meaning). The science & philosophy of Semiotics became necessary in the 20th century, in part due to the proliferation of communication channels, and to the complex layering of subcultures. More recently, Kahneman & Tversky labeled a variety of ways that otherwise obvious meanings can be misinterpreted (e.g. availability heuristic), due to common errors in reasoning. That's especially true for Characterizing Labels.

In the Reductionism and Holism thread, my usage of "holism" as a scientific term was challenged. I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about. And it turned-out that the challenger was working with a vague Scientific definition, but his objection mostly involved a Semiotic meaning of the word, due to its negative association with New Agers & Hippies. For some people, the word "holism" -- like long-hair for males in the 60s -- still symbolizes counter-cultural lifestyles, and an anti-science attitude.

That lingering antagonism toward an appropriate scientific & philosophical term, forced scientists using holistic methods to label their work as Systems Theory, in order to avoid the biased baggage. However, to be more specific, the full name of the theory would be "Theory of Whole Systems". That's contrasted with Reductionism, which is a theory of fragmented systems.

So, if your intended meaning is misunderstood on this forum, it may not be due to ignorance of the dictionary definition, but to a prejudiced attitude toward what the term signifies or symbolizes. That shouldn't happen on a philosophical forum, but even philosophically-inclined people are subject to emotional & prejudicial errors in reasoning. Which is why some of the most contentious threads go-on-&-on, without reaching an agreeable interpretation of the topic. :smile: