It is precisely the approach, act or attitude of only
considering the first part of the first definition of
definition you are demonstrating:
• noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word
or the nature or scope of something. 2 the action or
process of defining.
Scope of something. Process of defining.
Dictionaries, and therefore definitions/terms have
evolved over the years; language is evolving because
there is always scope and process to improve, expand,
modify definitions*.
This debate has illustrated that there are different
types of research and researcher; some which prefer to
research the already researched, accepting only old,
limited definitions without any desire to do any of
the above, and some pushing boundaries or creating
room to generate expanded, improved, modified, edited
definitions.
Here is a fantastic text about the Oxford Dictionary
and how definitions of words have evolved:
....These slips were then filed alphabetically by the
word they defined. This crude but efficient process is
the source of each term's documentation, from its
earliest form to its most modern recorded usage.
When the Oxford University Press took over the project
in 1878, the editors thought that the material amassed
by then would adequately cover the scope of the
original philological intentions, but Murray was
dissatisfied and found the completed work limited in
scope.
Murray organised another programme in 1879, seeking a
selection of quotations from a broader base of
publishing history, including modern books as well,
thinking popular literature as important for the
purpose of detailing the true language as more
scholarly texts....
So,
Philology, education, art research....these are very
much concerned with questioning, expanding and always
RESEARCHING INTO THE ADEQUACY, APPLICABILITY, SCOPE
and PROCESS OF THINGS, including, definitions.
Isabella Zuhal Parla
--- Peter Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
|