Roy asked:

What makes a definition correct? Is the contemporary definition (what most people assume the word
to mean) a higher priority than a contextual definition? Some people are clueless that words can be
defined by the context they are written in. The same people argue that speakers of the language
make up the contemporary definitions of a word and that is the final definition.

For example, to most native New Yorkers (where I am from) an 'Argument' is simply a disagreement.
When I point out that arguments should be followed by reasons and a conclusion I get criticised —
who am I to correct them?

Another example in a college environment. My former speech professor defined and distinguished an
'art' from a 'sport' to his class; he stated that in a sport the consequences are paramount, whereas
form is paramount in an art. For example gymnastics is not a sport but an art since form is part of a
gymnast's score; a person who falls off of the balance beam scores lower than the one who does not
fall. In a sport like basketball form is irrelevant to scoring a basket; one can perform the sloppiest lay
up and fall on his face, but if the ball goes in the basket 2 points are scored. Meanwhile, another
player might perform a perfect layup or the world's greatest slam dunk in history and also receive 2
points. The distinction makes sense, but is still rejected by many people — at least in New York City
— who know what the Olympics are. Many people believe that all Olympic events are definitely
sports. When told 'Gymnastics is not a sport' people get upset and argue that whatever the current
authorities say is a sport is a sport. How does one solve this kind of problem?

I favor intellectual definitions (extensional, intensional, lexical, range, operational, theoretical, etc);
whereas other people appeal to authority — whatever the boss says is right to me.

============

Going to a dictionary is a good first step to discovering what a term means, and dictionaries are
places for authoritative definitions which are based on how native or fluent speakers of a language
use a term. It is a "first step" (but still a good one) because there may need to be further explanations
refinements and further distinctions not covered by the dictionary but needed for philosophical
purposes. The philosopher may, for instance, be interested in distinguishing between believing and
knowing is a more elaborate way than could be done by any dictionary. The case you give of your
speech professor's distinction between art and sport which had the consequence of gymnastics not
being classified as a sport is another illustration of this refinement of ordinary meanings for
philosophical purposes. When your professor did this he was pointing out the similarities of
gymnastics to something the performance arts like ballet and playing a musical instrument, and
suggesting that it was more like those actions than it is like baseball or like football. And this seems
true to me, although for other purposes gymnastics is thought of as a sport since it is something
which involves a formal competition. The world is more complex than our classifications, and some
things can be classified in many different ways. Why not simply say that although for the purposes of
the Olympics gymnastics is a sport because it is competitive, it also has stronger similarities to art
than most other sports?

You should remember that words may (and often do) have more than just one meaning. Your
argument over the word "argument" illustrates this. In most logic texts you will find some mention that
the term "argument" as used in that text (and in the context of logic) is not a synonym for "dispute" or
"altercation". (I don't think a disagreement is any sort of argument, although disagreements may give
rise to arguments in the sense of "altercation.")

Ken Stern

19