Eliezer's writing style of A->B, then A, then B, though generally clear, results in a large amount of redundancy.
In this post, I have attempted to reduce the number of rules needed to remember by half. The numbers are the rules from the original post.
So, without further ado, a good definition for a word:
- can be shown to be wrong37 and is not the final13 authority18 19
- has strong justifications33 for the word's existence32 and its particular definition,20 which leave no room for an argument17 22
- agrees with conventional usage4
- explains what context the word depends on36
- limits its scope to avoid overlap with other meanings25
- does not assume that definitions are the best way of giving words semantics12
- directs a complex mental paintbrush35 to paint detailed pictures of the thing you're trying to think about23
- is a brain inference aid13 that refers to and instructs one on how to find a specific/unique24 similarity cluster21 that is apparent from empirical experience28 29 30, the cluster's size being inversely proportional to the word's length31
- is not a binary category9 11 and cannot be used for deductive inference27
- requires observing only14 a few3 real-world1 properties that can be easily5 verified2 and are less abstract6 than the word being defined (in particular, the definition cannot be circular16)
- is not just a list of random properties10 21
- contains no negated properties10 33
- specifies exhaustively all of the correct connotations of the word25 26
- makes the properties of a random object satisfying the definition be nearly independent34
- has examples6 which satisfy the definition, including the original example(s) that motivated the definition being given15 and typical/conventional examples7
- tells you which examples are more typical or less typical9
- captures enough characteristics of the examples to identify non-members8
And there you go. 17 rules, follow them all and you can't use words wrongly.
Eliezer never claimed that his 37 ways a definition can be bad constitute an exhaustive list of ways for definitions to be bad, still less that bad definitions are the only way to use words wrongly. In fact he said the reverse:
In response to the second of the observations (from NoahTheDuke) I see you've combined your list with two further principles: know your definitions (which are to meet your criteria) and then use words according to their definitions.
But (as your point 6 says) definitions aren't always the best way to give semantics to words, and most of the ways of abusing words have to do with things other than how we define them.
I'm bemused by this article. Is it perhaps intended as some sort of parody -- the wide-eyed cultist slightly rewording the cult leader's pronouncements and declaring that obeying these rules is the One True Guarantee Of Success? (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't regard LW as a cult or Eliezer as a cult leader, but I know some people do and if this is intended as parody then I guess that's what lies behind it.) If it's not parody, then all I can say is that it seems remarkably overoptimistic.
You missed the context, which is when someone claims "This can't be wrong." Rule #1 clearly states the definition can be wrong. On the other hand, there are different levels of wrongness. Sure, these rules are most likely wrong and incomplete, but they are more correct than having no rules at all. And the reason definitions aren't the best way to give semantics is because we already have a better semantics, namely the "similarity cluster&qu... (read more)