Rationalist taboo

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Rationalist taboo

This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?

Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Arjen »

I do agree with the sentiment, but that complicates matters greatly as well. Remember that book:"The meaning of meaning?".(H. Putnam)
https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=the ... DsRv7Utb4J

And does using words with similar meaning actually solve the issue? Or does it have more to do with an attempt to try to understand your conversation partner, or the intent to show an alternate opinion; as if the conversation partner is all wrong for understanding something in a certain way.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Arjen wrote: October 19th, 2020, 12:26 am ...does using words with similar meaning actually solve the issue?
No, but I think it might help in some circumstances, maybe in many circumstances. Communicating meaning by way of words is always fraught with problems of misunderstanding. This is just one thing that could help. Sometimes.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Arjen »

I do not disagree. However, currently, I know many different words for things like meaning and observation. :)
Sometimes I try to separate, but typically, the people that understand what I am saying don't need me to use alternate words. So, in that sense, the ones that do, don't see what I am saying after either.

Perhaps we could start a campaign though, because it would help for clarity's sake!
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo

This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?

Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
Could work.
So were you to be asked to define what you mean by objectivity - what, exactly would you say.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo

This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?

Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?

Sculptor1 wrote: October 21st, 2020, 2:13 pm Could work.
Yes, for some topics at least. I have tried similar-sounding practices in software design, and they made a positive contribution. As long as people act in good faith, moderate success seems perfectly possible.


Sculptor1 wrote: October 21st, 2020, 2:13 pm So were you to be asked to define what you mean by objectivity - what, exactly would you say.

I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. 😉 It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.

There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.

I think this idea has merit.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Arjen wrote: October 21st, 2020, 1:56 pm ...but typically, the people that understand what I am saying don't need me to use alternate words.
I see what you mean, but people can only understand us if we express our thoughts in clear and simple words. If we don't say clearly what we mean, won't even the most capable readers fail to understand? I think they will, and I think that's the whole point of this idea.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Abridged/adapted by me from the Rational Wiki article I linked:
Rationalist taboo is a technique which tries to overcome ambiguity and seek clarity in a discussion by restricting your use of language.


It specifies that the participants make one or more of the core terms in a discussion — like "objectivity" — a taboo word that temporarily cannot be said: more precise descriptions are used instead. It is important to note that simply using a synonym does not suffice:

The goal is to encourage speakers to carefully define meaning that might be otherwise disguised by the tabooed word.

For example, it is meaningless to argue about whether or not a particular sentiment is "objective", unless both speakers agree on the exact nature of "objectivity." Making "objectivity" a taboo word encourages speakers to describe the specific meaning intended, rather than arguing over the validity of a vague label.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Arjen »

I am not saying it is a bad idea, but for me, I prefer giving ny definitions of the terms used. On this forum that has it's drawbacks. I can't edit previous posts. So, if I forget one, or need one later, the plan is screwed.

The down side of not using the term under discussion, but keep describing it, is all thwme typing.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Arjen wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 9:18 am I am not saying it is a bad idea, but for me, I prefer giving my definitions of the terms used.
...which is pretty much what this 'rationalist taboo' is suggesting, isn't it? 😉

Arjen wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 9:18 am On this forum that has it's drawbacks. I can't edit previous posts.
Yes, that's a problem for many of us, I think. 😥
Arjen wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 9:18 am The down side of not using the term under discussion, but keep describing it, is all the typing.
Well, yes. To write more clearly might sometimes need a little more typing. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 8:36 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo

This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?

Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?

Sculptor1 wrote: October 21st, 2020, 2:13 pm Could work.
Yes, for some topics at least. I have tried similar-sounding practices in software design, and they made a positive contribution. As long as people act in good faith, moderate success seems perfectly possible.


Sculptor1 wrote: October 21st, 2020, 2:13 pm So were you to be asked to define what you mean by objectivity - what, exactly would you say.

I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. 😉 It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.

There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.

I think this idea has merit.
So the difficulty here seems clear.
I asked you a simple question, and you used two paragraphs and managed to avoid answering that question.
If objectivity relies on context then its clear enough that objectivity is subjective.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Arjen »

Pattern-chaser wrote: ...which is pretty much what this 'rationalist taboo' is suggesting, isn't it? 😉
I meant 1 time and then just use the word.
Well, yes. To write more clearly might sometimes need a little more typing. 😉
I am lazy!
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 1:18 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 8:36 am I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. 😉 It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.

There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.

I think this idea has merit.
So the difficulty here seems clear.
I asked you a simple question, and you used two paragraphs and managed to avoid answering that question.
If objectivity relies on context then its clear enough that objectivity is subjective.
Not only did I answer your question, pointing out that, in different circumstances, I might mean any of the common meanings that "objective" is used to carry, but I also provided two specific examples. 😉 If you want the One and Only Meaning of "objective", I can't give one. The word, as you know, is used to carry several different (but related) meanings.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Arjen wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 1:27 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: ...which is pretty much what this 'rationalist taboo' is suggesting, isn't it? 😉
I meant 1 time and then just use the word.
Yes, I realised that. 😉 But what is so Very Bad about being clear, and remaining so throughout your posts? 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rationalist taboo

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 9:18 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 22nd, 2020, 1:18 pm

So the difficulty here seems clear.
I asked you a simple question, and you used two paragraphs and managed to avoid answering that question.
If objectivity relies on context then its clear enough that objectivity is subjective.
Not only did I answer your question, pointing out that, in different circumstances, I might mean any of the common meanings that "objective" is used to carry, but I also provided two specific examples. 😉 If you want the One and Only Meaning of "objective", I can't give one. The word, as you know, is used to carry several different (but related) meanings.
I did not ask you want objective was in different circumstances, I asked you what objectivity is.
And the fact that, as I agree, the answer, depends; that means the definition of objectivity is subjective.
This leaves a endless cycle of navel gazing and semantic argumentation about a common word used in philosophy. I think that most words would engender the same problem.
Right now, an observer from another planet would be no clearer as the the meaning of objectivity.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021