Comment by xpe

A time traveler from the future has recommended we both read or reread “Disputing Definitions” by Yudkowsky (2008).

Some favorite quotes of mine from it:

> Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language. Dictionary editors find words in current usage, then write down the words next to (a small part of) what people seem to mean by them.

> Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn't go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led.

>> Eliezer: "Personally I'd say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents, like acoustic vibrations or auditory experiences. Or each side could designate a new word, like 'alberzle' and 'bargulum', to use for what they respectively used to call 'sound'; and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about. Does that sound right to you?"