Why clear definitions are key to intelligent discussions

Being precise about our ideas doesn't just allow us to have better conversations, it's also an incisive way to learn.

DONALD HOFFMAN: In science and in personal life, we are often making claims. We're claiming either that a scientific theory is true. Let's say evolution by natural selection. Organisms evolve and are shaped by natural selection. Or we're making spiritual claims, you know, god exists. God loves you. Or we're making claims, you know, about politics about Republicans or Democrats and their motives and so forth.

And whenever we're making claims in any area of science, politics, religion, or personal life, if we really want to have an intelligent, and informative, and helpful discussion, we need to make sure that we're using terms in a well-defined way that other people understand and share the definitions. At least, they understand our definitions.

If I'm using the word god, and someone from another religion has a very, very different notion of god, we could be arguing at odds and be unhappy with each other, and not realize that we're talking about very, very different things. And so in science and in mathematics, it's standard to try to define, as clearly as you can, upfront what you're talking about.

Now in some cases you can't. Right? And where you cannot define exactly what you're talking about, you should highlight that and say, we're going to do research to try to find out the right definition.

So for example, the word gene in evolutionary biology. That word was a useful term. But the biologists Francis Crick and James Watson could not define with mathematical precision what a gene was. It was an intuitive notion. It was very, very helpful in genetics but without a real precise definition.

And it's turned out, as we've gone on with molecular biology, our notion of the gene has been refined and refined and refined. So that's perfectly fine. So what we need to do is give provisional definitions or if we can't say precisely to say the kinds of phenomena we're trying to explain. But I would say that it's really important to be as clear as possible about what you're talking about, to define your terms.

Especially, I would say, in spiritual discourse, right? It's very easy to use terms like love, god, togetherness, or whatever it might be and to assume everybody else knows what you mean by love, or by altruism, or by god, or by Brahman, or whatever. And many cases, a lot of arguments and a lot of unnecessary heated discussion could be avoided by just understanding and sharing clearly what our ideas are.

Another thing I would say about this is dogmatism is always the enemy of knowledge. Being dogmatic closes you to the possibility of being wrong. Being non-dogmatic, admitting right upfront that I'm probably wrong, that I could be wrong or that I'm probably wrong, is the most helpful thing that you could possibly do to open yourself up to learning. And that's in all aspects of life-- in science, and spirituality, in a relationship with other people. Even in our relationships, don't assume that I know everything about my partner that I've been with for so many years. To be open that I could be wrong about my understanding of their world.

I think that dogmatism is the biggest problem that we have in our personal lives in our discourse with others. Letting go of dogmatism being clear about our current ideas, being as precise as we can about our current ideas, not because we're insisting that we're right, but we're trying to be precise and clear so we don't have false arguments over nonsense. But also so that we can find out precisely why we're wrong, where we're wrong. And that's how we learn the most quickly.

  • The best way to have an intelligent conversation with others is to ensure everyone understands the terms being used. They need to be clearly defined. If this isn't done, people may get into false arguments over nonsense — they may be talking about very, very different things.
  • Dogmatism is often the enemy of knowledge because it often prevents us from opening ourselves up to the possibility that we may be wrong — it's this humility that allows us to consider different people's perspectives, some of which may be more accurate than our own.
  • Besides the ability to helpful discussions with others, being precise about our ideas and having well-defined terms allows us to also find out precisely where we are wrong. It's a quick and incisive way to learn.

The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes


How space debris created the world’s largest garbage dump

Since 1957, the world's space agencies have been polluting the space above us with countless pieces of junk, threatening our technological infrastructure and ability to venture deeper into space.

Framestock via Adobe Stock
Technology & Innovation
  • Space debris is any human-made object that's currently orbiting Earth.
  • When space debris collides with other space debris, it can create thousands more pieces of junk, a dangerous phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome.
  • Radical solutions are being proposed to fix the problem, some of which just might work. (See the video embedded toward the end of the article.)
Keep reading Show less

Looking for something? A team at MIT develop a robot that sees through walls

It uses radio waves to pinpoint items, even when they're hidden from view.

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP via Getty Images
Technology & Innovation
In recent years, robots have gained artificial vision, touch, and even smell.
Keep reading Show less

The ‘Lost Forty’: how a mapping error preserved an old-growth forest

A 19th-century surveying mistake kept lumberjacks away from what is now Minnesota's largest patch of old-growth trees.

Credit: U.S. Forest Service via Dan Alosso on Substack and licensed under CC-BY-SA
Strange Maps
  • In 1882, Josias R. King made a mess of mapping Coddington Lake, making it larger than it actually is.
  • For decades, Minnesota loggers left the local trees alone, thinking they were under water.
  • Today, the area is one of the last remaining patches of old-growth forest in the state.
Keep reading Show less

The Great Resignation: COVID revealed how abnormal the modern workplace is

Is working from home the ultimate liberation or the first step toward an even unhappier "new normal"?

Credit: BARBARA GINDL via Getty Images
Culture & Religion
  • The Great Resignation is an idea proposed by Professor Anthony Klotz that predicts a large number of people leaving their jobs after the COVID pandemic ends and life returns to "normal."
  • French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that by establishing what is and is not "normal," we are exerting a kind of power by making people behave a certain way.
  • If working from home becomes the new normal, we must be careful that it doesn't give way to a new lifestyle that we hate even more than the office.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast