Hubbry Logo
Stipulative definitionStipulative definitionMain
Open search
Stipulative definition
Community hub
Stipulative definition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Stipulative definition
Stipulative definition
Stipulative definition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect" within its stipulated context; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose.[1][2]

For example, in the riddle of induction by Nelson Goodman, "grue" was stipulated to be "a property of an object that makes it appear green if observed before some future time t, and blue if observed afterward". "Grue" has no meaning in standard English; therefore, Goodman created the new term and gave it a stipulative definition.

On stipulative definitions

[edit]

Stipulative definitions of existing terms are useful in making theoretical arguments, or stating specific cases. For example:

  • Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.
  • Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.
  • For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18 enrolled in a local school".

Some of these are also precising definitions, a subtype of stipulative definition that may not contradict but only extend the lexical definition of a term. Theoretical definitions, used extensively in science and philosophy, are similar in some ways to stipulative definitions (although theoretical definitions are somewhat normative,[clarification needed] more like persuasive definitions).[2]

Many holders of controversial and highly charged opinions use stipulative definitions referred to as persuasive definitions to attach the emotional or other connotations of a word to the meaning they would like to give it; for example, defining "murder" as "the killing of any living thing for any reason". The other side of such an argument is likely to use a different stipulative definition for the same term: "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" or "the premeditated killing of a human being". The lexical definition in such a case is likely to fall somewhere in between.

When a stipulative definition is confused with a lexical definition within an argument there is a risk of equivocation.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stipulative definition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A stipulative definition is a type of in which a new or existing term is assigned a specific meaning by the definer for the purposes of a , , or , independent of its conventional or prior usage. This assignment creates or prescribes a usage, requiring by the audience to become effective within that discussion. Unlike reportive definitions, which describe established meanings in a community, stipulative definitions do not aim to reflect existing linguistic practices but to introduce clarity or innovation in communication. In and logic, stipulative definitions serve as tools for precise reasoning by establishing agreed-upon terms, often in theoretical or argumentative settings where could hinder analysis. They can apply to entirely new terms—coining novel expressions—or redefine familiar ones to suit the definer's needs, such as in scientific or conceptual frameworks. For instance, philosopher contributed to the theory by distinguishing stipulative definitions as those that introduce new words into language, contrasting them with precising definitions that refine existing ones for specificity. Their validity lies not in correspondence to real-world essences but in conventional agreement, avoiding the futility of seeking "real" definitions that purport to capture inherent natures. Effective stipulative definitions must be clear, consistent, and non-circular to facilitate understanding, though they carry no obligation to align with broader linguistic norms outside the stipulated . An example is defining "MBA" not as "" but as "married but available" to describe a social category in informal , provided the accepts this usage. In contrast to persuasive definitions, which load terms with emotive connotations to influence attitudes, stipulative ones remain neutral, focusing solely on semantic assignment. This distinction underscores their role in advancing objective inquiry while highlighting potential limitations if acceptance is withheld.

Core Concepts

Definition and Purpose

A stipulative definition assigns a specific meaning to a term as determined by the definer, independent of its conventional or usage, thereby establishing a precise for use within a particular or . This approach allows the definer to introduce clarity for concepts that may lack established terminology or require a tailored interpretation to suit the needs of the . The primary purpose of a stipulative definition is to eliminate in communication and reasoning by prescribing a fixed for the term, enabling participants to engage without over connotations or prior associations. It facilitates the development of precise arguments, the introduction of innovative ideas, and the creation of new terms unencumbered by everyday implications, serving as an essential tool in philosophical, logical, and technical discussions. Logically, a stipulative definition functions as a temporary convention that binds the to the stipulated meaning for the duration of the discussion, promoting consistency and focus without claiming to reflect or alter broader linguistic norms. Unlike lexical definitions, which describe established usage, stipulative definitions proactively shape usage to advance inquiry.

Key Characteristics

Stipulative definitions possess a fundamentally non-descriptive , as they assign a specific meaning to a term without to its prior or conventional usage in language. Unlike empirical or lexical definitions, which aim to capture existing connotations or denotations, stipulative definitions function as proposals that introduce or reassign meanings for particular purposes, such as enhancing clarity in . This approach ensures that the definition serves as a tool for communication rather than a of linguistic facts, emphasizing utility over fidelity to established norms. A core characteristic of stipulative definitions is their context-bound application, limiting their validity to the specific scope established by the stipulator, such as within a particular , text, or theoretical framework. Outside this delimited context, the definition does not impose universal obligations on language use, allowing for multiple stipulations of the same term in different settings without conflict. For instance, a philosopher might stipulate "raimex" to mean a rational, imaginative, experiencing being solely for the duration of an , rendering statements like "raimexes are rational" analytically true within that bounded discussion. This boundedness aligns with their role in avoiding by creating precise, localized terminology. Stipulative definitions require intentional and explicit announcement to be operative, typically through direct statements that clearly convey the proposed meaning, such as "By ',' I mean a system where all decisions are made by unanimous vote." Without this overt stipulation, the assignment risks confusion or misinterpretation, as it relies on the audience's recognition of the deliberate reorientation of the term. This explicitness underscores their proposal-like status, where acceptance hinges on the perceived usefulness of the definition rather than its alignment with external truths. In terms of flexibility, stipulative definitions permit the redefinition of existing words or the invention of neologisms, prioritizing conceptual clarity and argumentative efficiency over adherence to linguistic tradition. This adaptability allows thinkers to tailor to novel ideas, as seen in reference-fixing stipulations like defining "" as "the man who murdered specific victims," which establishes a contingent yet a priori truth within the stipulated context. Such flexibility fosters innovation in philosophical and scientific , though it demands careful communication to prevent unintended extensions beyond the intended scope.

Distinctions from Other Definitions

Lexical and Precising Definitions

Lexical definitions aim to report the conventional or common usage of a term as it appears in everyday , often relying on dictionaries, linguistic corpora, or observed patterns to achieve descriptive accuracy. For instance, the term "" is lexically defined as an unmarried adult man, capturing its standard meaning without alteration. In contrast, stipulative definitions bypass this descriptive approach, assigning a meaning based solely on the definer's intent or convenience, even if it conflicts with established usage. Precising definitions, on the other hand, start from a lexical base but refine a term's meaning by imposing narrower boundaries to reduce or in a particular context, such as defining "bald" as having fewer than 100 hairs on the for medical or legal discussions. Another example is specifying "" as a self-propelled device designed for , excluding bicycles, to clarify regulations. Unlike stipulative definitions, which can introduce entirely novel meanings unbound by prior connotations, precising definitions remain tethered to the term's original sense while enhancing its utility for precision. The core distinction lies in their orientation toward language: both lexical and precising definitions strive for alignment with existing linguistic norms—descriptive in the former and refining in the latter—whereas stipulative definitions prioritize the definer's purpose, allowing for complete divergence if needed. For example, in an eighteenth-century biological context, "fish" was stipulatively defined to exclude whales, departing from broader common usage that sometimes included them, to serve taxonomic clarity. This flexibility underscores how stipulatives facilitate novel conceptual frameworks without the constraints of lexical fidelity or precising refinement.

Theoretical and Persuasive Definitions

Theoretical definitions seek to elucidate the underlying nature or essence of a , often by proposing a fundamental explanation that captures its essential properties within a theoretical framework. In , such definitions aim to reveal what something truly is, rather than merely assigning a usage for convenience. For instance, Aristotle's characterization of humans as "rational animals" serves as a theoretical definition, positing as the distinguishing essence that sets humans apart from other animals, grounded in his metaphysical and biological inquiries. Unlike stipulative definitions, which introduce or fix a meaning without claiming to uncover objective truth, theoretical definitions carry commitments to the accuracy of their explanatory power and often integrate with broader systems of knowledge, such as scientific or philosophical theories. Persuasive definitions, by contrast, are designed to influence attitudes or beliefs by loading a term with emotive or evaluative connotations, thereby advancing a rhetorical agenda rather than neutrally denoting a class of objects. Coined by philosopher C. L. Stevenson, this type of definition reinterprets familiar terms to sway , often disguising bias as neutral description. A classic illustration is the contrasting use of "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" to describe the same individual or group, where the former evokes positive valor and the latter negative condemnation, depending on the speaker's perspective to manipulate . Stipulative definitions differ fundamentally here, as they prioritize clear without inherent or emotional slant, focusing solely on stipulating a precise scope for or analytical purposes. The boundaries between stipulative definitions and their theoretical or persuasive counterparts can blur if a stipulation inadvertently implies metaphysical commitments or evaluative . For example, a seemingly stipulative definition might veer into theoretical territory by suggesting it captures a real essence, or into persuasive by embedding subtle connotations that influence beyond mere usage. Pure stipulative definitions, however, maintain neutrality by avoiding such implications, serving as tools for clarity without asserting truth or seeking to persuade. In , this neutrality enables stipulatives to facilitate conceptual analysis, allowing philosophers to explore ideas without incurring unnecessary metaphysical or rhetorical obligations, as seen in practices of reference-fixing or introducing technical terms in logical arguments.

Historical Development

Origins in Philosophy

The concept of stipulative definition, though formalized in , finds its roots in dialectical practices, where terms were provisionally assigned meanings to facilitate inquiry without claiming to capture eternal essences. In Plato's , engages Euthyphro in a aimed at clarifying "" through proposed definitions, such as equating it with what the gods love, to advance the discussion and expose inconsistencies in common usage. These provisional assignments function implicitly as stipulations, setting the stage for elenchus (refutation) rather than asserting a final, real definition of the term. Plato's method underscores the utility of such definitions in , prioritizing conceptual precision for the sake of over lexical fidelity. In the 17th century, contributed to the development of stipulative definitions by distinguishing them as those that introduce new words into language, contrasting them with precising definitions that refine existing ones for specificity. During the medieval period, the development of further advanced stipulative approaches to definition, particularly in discussions of universals. , a key nominalist, distinguished between real definitions, which describe the essence of things, and nominal definitions, which specify how terms are to be used as mental constructs or signs rather than referring to independent entities. For Ockham, universals like "humanity" exist only as stipulated names or concepts in the mind, not as real substances, allowing philosophers to define terms conventionally to avoid ontological commitments to abstract realities. This stipulative framing of definitions as linguistic conventions influenced later semantics by emphasizing their role in clarifying thought without presupposing metaphysical realism. In the 20th century, logical positivists formalized stipulative definitions as essential tools for constructing precise languages free from metaphysical ambiguity. , in his Logical Syntax of Language (1934), proposed the "principle of tolerance," permitting the stipulation of syntactic rules for artificial languages to ensure logical consistency and verifiability, thereby eliminating pseudo-problems in . Carnap argued that such stipulations—assigning meanings to symbols via formation and transformation rules—enable scientific discourse while avoiding unverifiable claims about the world. This approach ties directly to semantics through speech act theory, where and viewed definitional acts as performatives: uttering "I define X as Y" not only describes but enacts a binding within a linguistic community. Searle, building on Austin, highlighted stipulative definitions as illocutionary acts that confer new meanings, reinforcing their role in communicative efficacy.

Evolution in Modern Linguistics

In the post-World War II era, stipulative definitions gained prominence in linguistic semantics through the lens of , which emphasized the contextual and rule-based nature of meaning. Ludwig Wittgenstein's (1953) introduced the concept of "language games," portraying language as a series of activities governed by shared rules that stipulate how terms are used within specific forms of life, rather than fixed essences. This approach treated stipulations as dynamic rule-setting mechanisms embedded in everyday practices, influencing subsequent linguistic theories by shifting focus from abstract semantics to practical usage. Building on this foundation, J.L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words (1962) integrated stipulative elements into speech act theory, linking them to illocutionary acts—utterances that perform actions, such as promising or defining, by stipulating commitments or meanings within social conventions. John Searle further developed these ideas in works like Speech Acts (1969), systematizing how stipulative definitions underpin the felicity conditions of performative language, where speakers explicitly assign meanings to facilitate communication without reliance on prior lexical norms. These contributions marked a pivotal evolution, embedding stipulatives in the analysis of performative and contextual semantics in mid-20th-century . In contemporary , stipulative definitions play a crucial role in constructing ontologies for the , where they precisely assign meanings to terms to ensure interoperability and machine readability. For instance, the (OWL), a W3C standard, relies on stipulative definitions to articulate classes, properties, and relations in domain-specific knowledge representations, often using Aristotelian forms with necessary and sufficient conditions to disambiguate concepts like "bacteremia" in biomedical ontologies. Postmodern theory, meanwhile, critiques such stipulations for embedding power dynamics, arguing that they impose authoritative meanings that marginalize alternative discourses, as seen in analyses of how definitional acts reinforce institutional control over knowledge production. In the 21st century, stipulative definitions have integrated into AI ethics, particularly in clarifying contested terms like "bias" in algorithms to frame debates without empirical presuppositions. This application underscores stipulatives' role in resolving conceptual ambiguities in emerging technologies, fostering precise ethical guidelines amid rapid advancements.

Practical Applications

In Logical and Philosophical Arguments

Stipulative definitions serve a critical function in logical deduction by assigning precise meanings to terms, thereby enabling the formulation of premises that can be tested for validity without interference from linguistic ambiguity. In formal logic, for instance, terms such as "valid argument" are often stipulatively defined to mean a deductive structure where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, allowing reasoners to isolate and evaluate the formal properties of inferences. This practice ensures that arguments can be constructed and scrutinized in a controlled manner, as seen in standard logic textbooks where such definitions underpin the analysis of syllogisms and other deductive forms. By fixing the interpretation of key terms, stipulative definitions help prevent the fallacy of , where a word's shifting meanings undermine an argument's coherence. , in A System of Logic, highlighted how ambiguous or indeterminate connotations in names can lead to erroneous reasoning, advocating for explicit definitions to maintain consistency within discourse; for example, stipulating that "" refers solely to an invariable antecedent avoids conflating it with mere in inductive methods. This approach aligns with Mill's broader emphasis on precise to support reliable logical operations, such as his methods of agreement and difference. In metaphysical inquiries, stipulative definitions facilitate the exploration of hypothetical or counterfactual scenarios by prescribing meanings that abstract from ordinary usage, enabling "what if" analyses of abstract concepts. For example, philosophers might stipulate "" as the capacity for alternative actions unconstrained by prior causes, allowing examination of its compatibility with without presupposing empirical commitments. As Michael Ghiselin notes in Metaphysics and the Origin of Species, such definitions propose novel linguistic usages to probe ontological possibilities, fostering conceptual clarity in debates over and necessity. Despite their utility, stipulative definitions have inherent limitations in philosophical debates, as they merely clarify and cannot adjudicate substantive disagreements about or truth. Norman Swartz observes that while these definitions aid precise , they emerge from ongoing arguments rather than resolving them, such as when rival interpretations of "" persist despite stipulated usages. Thus, they serve as tools for advancing discussion but falter when participants reject the stipulated frame, underscoring their provisional nature in contentious philosophical terrain. In legal contexts, stipulative definitions are employed in statutes and codes to prescribe precise meanings for terms within the scope of the law, ensuring clarity and uniformity in application without reliance on evolving interpretations. For instance, under Virginia's laws, the term "" is defined as every device in, on or by which any or property is or may be transported or drawn on a , except personal delivery devices and devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, while "" is separately defined as a device upon or in which any under of sixteen years can ride that is used exclusively for amusement or recreation (excluding certain mobility devices like electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, mopeds, motorized skateboards or scooters, or motorcycles), thereby limiting the application of regulations to operational conveyances rather than playthings. This approach facilitates by binding the term's meaning to the legislative text, reducing ambiguity in enforcement. In scientific contexts, stipulative definitions underpin operationalism, a methodology introduced by physicist in his 1927 work The Logic of Modern Physics, which posits that the meaning of a scientific concept is given by the concrete operations used to verify or measure it. Bridgman exemplified this with the concept of "," stipulating it as the result of comparing an object to a standardized meter-rod under specified conditions, thereby grounding abstract notions in empirical procedures. This operational approach ensures concepts are testable and context-specific, promoting rigor in physical sciences by tying definitions to reproducible measurements. Within experimental sciences, stipulative definitions operationalize variables to enable hypothesis testing and replicability. In , for example, "intelligence" is often stipulated as the score obtained from standardized IQ tests, such as those assessing cognitive abilities through timed problem-solving tasks, allowing researchers to quantify and correlate it with other factors like educational outcomes. Such definitions transform vague constructs into measurable entities, facilitating controlled studies while acknowledging their provisional nature within the experiment's framework. An interdisciplinary application appears in , where stipulative definitions clarify contested concepts like "" in debates over rights, often specifying criteria such as viability or to frame ethical and policy discussions on issues like or research. This usage highlights the context-bound characteristic of stipulative definitions, adapting them to resolve ambiguities in applied ethical reasoning without implying universal truth.

Examples and Illustrations

Philosophical Examples

One prominent example of a stipulative definition in is John Rawls's "veil of ignorance," introduced in his 1971 work . Rawls stipulates this as a hypothetical device in the "original position," where rational agents choose principles of justice without knowledge of their own social status, talents, or personal circumstances, ensuring impartiality and fairness in deriving basic social structures. This stipulation serves as a to isolate from , leading to the selection of principles like equal liberty and the difference principle. In metaphysics and , W.V.O. Quine provides another influential stipulative definition through his criterion of , articulated in his 1948 essay "On What There Is." Quine stipulates that a is committed to those entities that must be quantified over in its canonical formulation—essentially, "to be is to be the value of a variable"—shifting focus from existential claims to the logical structure of the itself, thereby avoiding unnecessary posits like abstract objects unless required by quantification. This definition allows philosophers to assess a 's based on its formal commitments rather than intuitive assertions about existence. Within , stipulates as a performative rather than a biological or essential trait, as elaborated in her 1990 book : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. defines gender performativity as the repetitive enactment of norms through and acts, which constitute identity over time, critiquing essentialist views that tie to fixed and enabling analysis of how power structures enforce such categories. This stipulation challenges traditional binaries and highlights 's contingency, influencing subsequent debates on identity and subversion. A classic analytic example appears in , where was traditionally stipulated as justified true (JTB) prior to Edmund Gettier's 1963 counterexamples. This definition, traceable to discussions in Plato's Theaetetus but formalized in modern terms, stipulates that for a subject to know a , they must believe it, the must be true, and it must be justified by adequate evidence or reasons, providing a framework for analyzing epistemic warrant without invoking additional conditions. This stipulation facilitated centuries of inquiry into the nature of justification until Gettier cases prompted refinements.

Contemporary Usage Examples

In contemporary discussions within technology and , the term "" is often stipulatively defined as the deliberate fabrication and dissemination of false intended to deceive audiences and undermine trust in factual reporting. This definition, proposed to distinguish intentional from mere errors or biases, has been advocated in academic analyses of to guide ethical standards and regulatory responses. In social sciences, particularly in , "poverty" is frequently stipulatively defined as household income below 50% of the national equivalised disposable income, enabling consistent cross-country comparisons in economic reports. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development () employs this threshold to measure relative , classifying individuals as poor when their income falls short of this benchmark to highlight inequality and inform social welfare strategies. In , authors commonly introduce stipulative definitions for fictional terms to build immersive worlds, such as J.K. Rowling's designation of "" in the series as a non-magical person born to non-magical parents, lacking any innate magical abilities. This definition establishes a clear social divide within the narrative, influencing character interactions and themes of without reference to real-world connotations. Environmental activism groups often stipulate narrow definitions of "sustainability" to critique and exclude practices from specific industries, such as Greenpeace's assertion that inherently precludes the use of due to associated ecological risks. This targeted definition supports campaigns against sectors, framing them as incompatible with long-term and .

Criticisms and Limitations

Common Misuses

One common misuse of stipulative definitions occurs when they are introduced implicitly or covertly, without explicitly announcing the new meaning to the , leading to as participants assume the term retains its conventional usage. This error often arises in verbal disputes, where one party redefines a term peculiarly but proceeds as if the redefined sense is shared, thereby derailing productive . For instance, in a on , someone might stipulate "morality" as solely "actions benefiting " without declaration, causing opponents to respond based on standard connotations of or , resulting in crossed purposes. Another frequent abuse involves overreach, where a stipulative definition is treated as establishing universal or factual truths rather than a provisional tool for clarity within a specific context, veering into dogmatism. This blurs the boundary between stipulation and assertion, as when a definition is leveraged to "prove" existence or necessity, such as stipulating "deity" as "an existent supreme being" to argue for theism without further evidence. Stipulative definitions, being arbitrary assignments for argumentative convenience, lack the authority to legislate reality and should remain context-bound to avoid such inflationary claims. Stipulative definitions also risk circularity when the term being defined is used within its own proposed meaning, undermining the goal of enhancing clarity and introducing or tautology. For example, defining "identity" stipulatively as "a thing being identical to itself" fails to provide new insight, as it merely restates the without external reference, rendering the definition uninformative and prone to . Logic textbooks emphasize that even stipulative efforts must avoid this pitfall to fulfill their purpose of precise communication. In debates, a related misuse emerges when opponents outright ignore or reject a stipulative definition without engaging its intended utility or clarity, stalling by dismissing it as mere wordplay rather than assessing its contribution to the argument. This tactic exploits the arbitrary nature of stipulations, but it hinders resolution, as productive evaluation requires considering whether the definition achieves its contextual aims, such as simplifying complex ideas.

Debates on Validity

Pragmatist thinkers like viewed stipulative definitions as practical tools for advancing inquiry by operationalizing concepts to resolve indeterminate situations. In Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Dewey describes definitions as "ideal and ideational" instruments that direct observation and experimentation, formulating possible operations tested through consequences rather than fixed essences. In semantic theory, debates center on whether stipulative definitions can be "binding" without mutual consent, often linking to Paul Grice's framework of conversational , which distinguishes literal meaning from inferred implications based on principles. Stipulations introduce new meanings by , but without shared acceptance, they fail to override conventional semantics, potentially generating that confuse hearers if not explicitly negotiated. Philosophers like Frank Jackson argue that stipulative terms bind only within stipulated contexts, but broader semantic validity requires alignment with communal usage to avoid pragmatic failures akin to Gricean flouting of . This raises questions about enforceability: can a compel adherence without consent, or does it remain a mere proposal vulnerable to reinterpretation through ? A contemporary debate arises in AI ethics, where stipulating terms like "fairness" or "bias" risks embedding cultural biases into global standards, as definitions drawn from Western datasets may exclude non-Western perspectives. In automated decision-making, researchers note that stipulative definitions of discrimination—often narrowed to measurable disparities—overlook intersectional cultural nuances, perpetuating inequities in diverse contexts. For instance, a stipulative framing of bias as statistical deviation may ignore ethical relativism across cultures, leading to AI systems that impose parochial norms worldwide. This issue underscores the need for inclusive stipulation processes to mitigate cultural hegemony in AI governance, with 2025 trends emphasizing transparency, accountability, and global regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act to address biases in fairness definitions.

References

  1. https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/def.php
  2. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm
  3. https://educasia.org/wp-content/uploads/Other%20Stuff%20page/Study%20Skills%20etc/CT/miniguide_to_critical_thinking.pdf
  4. https://ojs.tnkul.pl/index.php/sum/article/download/12694/12468/
  5. https://oro.open.ac.uk/74547/1/Futile_Definitions.pdf
  6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/
  7. https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Cosumnes_River_College/PHIL_300%3A_Introduction_to_Philosophy_(Binder)/02%3A_Logic_and_Critical_Thinking/2.03%3A_Definitions
  8. https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Logic_and_Reasoning/Logical_Reasoning_%28Dowden%29/03%253A_Writing_with_the_Appropriate_Precision/3.06%253A_Creating_Helpful_Definitions/3.6.01%253A_Different_Definitions_for_Different_Purposes
  9. https://www.umsl.edu/~philo/People/Faculty/facultybios/WayOfWords/ch4.pdf
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/aristotles-anthropology/human-beings-as-rational-animals/6CF87EDB0B5AC3F5BD542FEFC39D8F9B
  11. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037c-a0c0-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  12. https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780198735304.001.0001/acref-9780198735304-e-2365
  13. https://philpapers.org/rec/ABEPD
  14. https://www.thoughtco.com/stipulative-definition-1692143
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phib.12249
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328066968_What_Is_Conceptual_Analysis
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#NomUni
  18. https://www.routledge.com/Logical-Syntax-of-Language/Carnap/p/book/9780415613798
  19. https://danielwharris.com/teaching/spring16/readings/SearleSpeechActs.pdf
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-jl/
  22. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/
  23. https://www.w3.org/OWL/
  24. https://philpapers.org/archive/SEPTFO.pdf
  25. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
  26. https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm
  27. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-h/27942-h.htm
  28. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p5.html
  29. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter1/section46.2-100/
  30. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2560&context=facpub
  31. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100251511
  32. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70620
  33. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/7-5-measures-of-intelligence
  34. https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745
  35. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674000780
  36. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Quine.pdf
  37. https://www.routledge.com/Gender-Trouble-Feminism-and-the-Subversion-of-Identity/Butler/p/book/9780415389556
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
  39. https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/5068/4350
  40. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en/full-report/income-poverty_53d4eac1.html
  41. https://www.harrypotter.com/fact-file/magical-miscellany/muggles
  42. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-usa-stateless/2024/11/677af241-challenging-aquaculture.pdf
  43. https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/evaluate.php
  44. https://ia601500.us.archive.org/13/items/JohnDeweyLogicTheTheoryOfInquiry/%5BJohn_Dewey%5D_Logic_-_The_Theory_of_Inquiry.pdf
  45. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2023.2255219
  46. https://dornsife.usc.edu/scottsoames/wp-content/uploads/sites/191/2023/11/Drawing_the_Line.pdf
  47. https://d-nb.info/1259953858/34
  48. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/global-perspectives-on-ai-bias-addressing-cultural-asymmetries-and-ethical-implications
  49. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/08/Addressing-Bias-in-AI-Report.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.