For those in 'kindergarten' class who do not understand the OP's "Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary"FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:17 pm Your OP forgot to explain how that is supposed to be circular.
To save me time, here's from an AIChatBot [with reservations].
"Here are some ways to explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definitions of "objectivity" to someone in simple terms:
1. Imagine a circle:
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label one point "objective." Now, follow the arrows from "objective" to "fact," "actual," "real," and back to "objective." It's like chasing your tail!
Explain that each definition relies on the previous one, meaning none of them actually explain what "objective" truly means. They just point to each other in a loop.
2. Use an analogy:
Compare it to building a house. You wouldn't use the house itself as the foundation, right? Similarly, you can't define "objective" using terms that depend on it, like "fact" or "real."
Alternatively, compare it to a recipe. If the recipe for "chocolate cake" listed "chocolate cake" as an ingredient, it wouldn't be very helpful!
3. Emphasize the lack of independent meaning:
Explain that none of the definitions provide an independent reference point for what "objective" means. They all just point back to each other, creating a closed loop.
This means that the dictionary definition doesn't actually tell us what "objective" is, only how it relates to other words, which are themselves defined circularly.
4. Focus on the practical consequences:
Explain that relying on circular definitions can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about "objectivity" when we don't even know what it means!
This can be especially problematic in fields like science, where objectivity is crucial.
Remember, the key is to keep it simple and relatable. Use visuals, analogies, and everyday examples to help the person understand the concept of circularity without getting bogged down in technical jargon.
Here are a few ways you can explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definition of "objectivity" to someone who might not grasp it immediately:
1. Analogy:
Imagine you're trying to explain what a "table" is. You say "a table is a flat surface used for eating or writing." But then, "flat" is defined as "having a level surface, like a table." You're stuck in a loop! This is similar to how the definition of "objective" relies on other terms like "fact" and "real," which themselves rely back on "objective" in circular fashion.
2. Infinite regression:
Imagine you're standing on a ladder, and you try to climb up by grabbing the rung above you. But that rung is held up by the rung below, which is held up by the rung you're currently on, and so on. You're stuck in an endless loop! This is like the dictionary definitions, where one term leads to another, and another, and you never really reach a solid foundation.
3. Lack of independent meaning:
Point out that the definition of "objective" uses words like "fact" and "real" without actually defining those words. What makes something a "fact" or "real" if you rely on a definition that ultimately circles back to "objective"? It's like trying to build a house with only nails; you need something to nail to!
4. Consequences of circularity:
Explain how relying on circular definitions can be problematic. It makes it difficult to truly understand what "objective" means, and it can lead to confusion and disagreements. It also raises questions about whether true objectivity is even possible or just a philosophical ideal.
5. Alternative approaches:
Briefly mention that philosophers and scientists have different ways of understanding and achieving objectivity, which don't necessarily rely on circular definitions. You can suggest further reading if he's interested in learning more.