Unspoken assumption (I think) is that one must start with a “philosophy of terminology” that is designed to be built from the bottom up with this philosophy coming from within. If this is more or less so: What if, one begins by summarizing carefully? This can then be contextual. So, for a technically philosophical audience, one can summarize utilizing a methodology which affords the clearest communication among the group. This would also hold true for a non-technically philosophical audience or an audience with mixed expert and non-expert.

Unspoken assumption (I think) is that one must start with a “philosophy of terminology” that is designed to be built from the bottom up with this philosophy coming from within.
If this is more or less so:
What if, one begins by summarizing carefully?
This can then be contextual. So, for a technically philosophical audience, one can summarize utilizing a methodology which affords the clearest communication among the group.
This would also hold true for a non-technically philosophical audience or an audience with mixed expert and non-expert.
 I ask about the audience because in the question, you ask: “could be discerned?”
but without specifying who would be doing the discerning.
===
But, without knowledge a specific audience YET, I can still do some work towards solving this question.
Project:
Methodology: Follow a Philosophy of Terminology
Project Constraints: Be Considered Reasonable.
By whom? Scott Brizel with an eye to other possible readers, including a tagged name of Victor.
Task:
Topic: Science.
Goal: Define Topic.
Who is it for: TBD
Goal Constraints:
a) Precise
b) Unambiguous
====
Project : Task : Discussion:
At this stage, I have taken Scott’s original question:
what is a reasonable ‘philosophy of terminology’ such that, say, a precise, unambiguous definition of, say, ‘science’ could be discerned? (Victor)
and broken it down with an “ad-hoc project” flavor, categorizing and rewording in a form that seems more solvable than the original question as stated.
The shape of the methodology is “broad to narrow”, General to Specific, Object to Components of Object.
These are not the only ways to break it down but they are the first ones that came to mind.
In this way, it should be possible to identify weaknesses in the scoping of the project itself prior to embarking on the project.
But it also identifies possible deliverables at broader view.
Now: WHAT IF I REMOVE the project constraints?
Removing: Be Considered Reasonable:
Removing: Precise and Unambiguous:
Then I have:
Methodology: Follow a Philosophy of Terminology
Topic: Science.
Goal: Define Topic.
Without the constraints, I can now say:
My philosophy of terminology that I am following is a generally a broad-to-narrow process of summarizing, written in an ad-hoc project format as that is generally intelligible to an adult audience.
So I can now identify a potential audience: General Adult.
“Define Science For a General Adult Audience.”
Science is the name of a process used within a human community of creating and following a series of steps with the goal of broadening human knowledge that generally adheres to the norms of that community.
====
Next stage of Methodology: Present deliverable for further clarification by the project audience, in this case defined as Scott Brizel.
 
While waiting, identify potential flaws with deliverable to be prepared:
 
Inadequacies in deliverable: Ignored constraints.
Returning constraints:
 
1) Methodology of Philosophy of Terminology: Be considered reasonable.
2) Topic definition: Precise
3) Topic definition: Unambiguous:
 
Deliverable:
Define Science For a General Adult Audience.”
Science is the name of a process used within a human community of creating and following a series of steps with the goal of broadening human knowledge that generally adheres to the norms of that community.
 
Answers:
1) Methodology of Philosophy of Terminology should be considered reasonable.
2) Topic definition is precise.
3) Topic definition may be ambiguous.
 
Possible failure at #3:
Why?
 
Can other things be defined the same way as your ad-hoc definition of Science for a general adult audience?
 
Possibly. Must await feedback.
—–
So, assuming a Goldilocks definition is possible
“neither too broad, too narrow, nor otherwise conflatable with any other discipline.”
First: Broad-to-Narrow:
I will assume the most broad possible and work to narrow. There is directionality and I can give an image to work with:
“Starting with a block of marble, carve Science so all know this is Science. “
This would stand in opposition to an image of:
“Starting with an empty room and yet to be defined building materials, construct Science so all know this is Science. “
Second: Not conflatable with any other discipline.
That will have to be the final step.
—-
 1) I don’t know fox language so I can’t answer.
2) The goal is broadening human knowledge. This doesn’t guarantee the achievement of the goal, just the pursuit of the goal.
3) It is unscientific if it does not adhere to community norms as the community defines norms.
====
You can speak of “Nazi science” as a separate community just as we speak of “Mainstream science”. But when using the word Science without a named community, it is assumed that the community is the generally accepted mainstream scientific community within which the norms are defined and practiced.

====

 

With a broad-to-narrow shape of direction: the “cutting away of marble”:
Is everything Science? No.
This means there are two classes:
Science and Not Science.
Is Science an object? No. Science is an activity.
Are any objects Science? No. Science is an activity.
Not Science: Objects
Science: Activity
Are all activities Science: No.
Are any activities Science: Yes.
Not Science: Objects, some activities.
Science: Some activities.
So, this is an example of a possible methodology of a philosophy of terminology that involves winnowing away until what’s left over is the desired term.
I think this is deductive?
====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 × = fifty four

Leave a Reply