> Yes, but this is taking a philosophical approach or
> semanticity to the extreme....definitions are often
> quite very useful in conducting any type of research
> as starting, progression or end points (they are never
> just one rigid definition which was started
> off with), any researcher would agree that they are
> 'flexible' concepts or tools to work with and
> to expand!
I do research, have done for about 20 years.
I emphatically do not agree defintions should be flexible.
Philisophy since the time of the Greeks has sought to distinguish
valid from invalid reasoning. Any text on logic is based on Greek
thought. One form of invalid reasoning is a to arrive at a conclusion
having stipulated that the conclusion is true. This is called the
fallacy of stipulation. Flexible defintions allow one to indulge
in such a fallacy or "it is true, because I say it is!".
So, my defintion of "defintion" is not one I have stipulated.
Foolish things stipulation allows:
Example: an aeroplane is a drawing because [reason deleted]
Example: a non-drawing is a drawing, because [reason deleted]
> The definition of definition once again!
>
> --- Garry Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> RE: In Response
> The fact that any definition of drawing can be
> challenged, isn't as interesting as the potential for
> any definition to be a point of departure for
> practice. The use of the threads of argument are in
> helping define parameters within which certain types
> of drawing based activities can actually be practiced.
> Invention often occurring when trying to operate
> within narrow constraints.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Peter Hall
> Sent: 30 August 2006 15:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: In Response to Barker, Appleby et all
>
> Suppose a defintion of drawing were available,
> what purpose would it serve?
>
> (I am used to defintions that allow theories to be
> constructed).
>
>
>
>
>
> * * This email and any files transmitted with it are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the
> individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This
> email represents the personal views of the
> author/sender. The author/sender has no authority or
> delegation to bind Leeds College of Art and Design by
> this e-mail and Leeds College of Art and Design
> accepts no responsibility whatsoever for its contents.
> Please note that any reply to this email may be
> screened. **
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use"
> – The Wall Street Journal
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
>
>
|