Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
It appears to me that you misunderstand the issue of definition itself. The purpose of a definition is to allow discrimination; given a definition, one may examine a particular incident and certify (via that definition alone) that the incident is or is not a member of the set of things so defined.
|
No; I understand it as you say. I started small & intend to build my definition around your objections as we go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doc
Thus you are asserting that, if I examine some information and decide that the information is “qualified” (whatever the meaning of qualified might be; notice that you are leaving that issue open) then the information “is” an explanation!
|
I did not leave the meaning of "qualified" open; in my original post it is linked to a dictionary definition. I expected, and expect, that if you et al find that definition defficient you will interpose your objection(s). Note that I also linked "record" to a dictionary definition for similar effect so we don't have to go all out
first principles here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doc
My original thesis was that an explanation did something to or for information which implies it is something quite different from mere “information”. So I have two complaints with your “definition”; first, that it essentially moves the definition into that other word (and I am pretty sure your intended meaning was “it qualifies as an explanation” which actually skirts the whole issue) and, second, it denies my suggestion without giving any reason for that rejection.
|
Yes; I think I understood your original thesis. As a foundation of constructing a definition of "explanation", an explanation
must "record" information (the act of recording is doing "something" to and/or for information), regardless of any further "qualifiers" we may wish or need to add to the definition. I did look at writing "An explanation qualifies recorded information" rather than "An explanation records qualified information.", however it seems to me the qualification of information precedes the recording.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DD
Now I am very willing to accept that "an explanation" can be "recorded" but a great many things can be "recorded" so that is not a very definitive characteristic.
|
I think any explanation
must needs be a record, not simply
can be a record.
You finish here by restating my objection to you objecting to my first definition, i.e.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tribble
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DocD
Nah; I wouldn't buy that! That would make the library of congress an explanation and I am afraid that isn't what most people would accept.
|
Seems quite an unqualified leap you [Doctor Dick] made there to say that just because all explanations constitute records of information that all records of information must then constitute explanations. |
So I was pointing out your non sequitor I think they call it.
An explanation records qualified information.
So we have a start on a definition that you dislike for its exclusions rather than inclusions, oui/no? That is to say, you think it is "wrong" because of what it does not say about the specifics of qualifiers?
That's all I got I guess 'til I get some more objections to work on.
