The opposite of arguing semantics
It may sound like I argue semantics. It’s very common for me to go into the differences between words and talk about their meaning. This has troubled me for a while because whenever I thought about it, I’d come to the conclusion I was doing something different, but I couldn’t explain it. Then it came to me. I am doing something similar, but in fact, the opposite.
To argue semantics, by which I mean splitting hairs, is generally to make claims or arguments based on the defined meaning of words used somewhere. This can lead to conclusions that are not well accepted in the context the argument is being made. For example, if one were to claim that oral sex did not count as real sex, and “cheating” had the requisite of “real sex” then oral sex is not cheating. You might be able to find definitions that support this, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. If most definitions did support this particular argument, more than anything it would identify a limitation of our own language because it’s generally accepted that oral sex is cheating. Arguing semantics commonly leads to false claims because words and language only represent an abstraction of actual meaning in a given situation. The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing defined.
Arguing semantics is a process of analysis. It tries to explain phenomena through a linear, context-free, reductionist process. Despite it seeming quite ineffective in actual arguments, it rather effectively shows us the limitations of our language. Arguing semantics is semantic analysis. The opposite of semantic analysis is semantic synthesis.
In a way, semantic synthesis helps resolve these limitations of our evolved language by extending it. It doesn’t redefine words, but overloads them in a way that is still aligned with their definition. It adds meaning to them, building on their roots in many cases.
There is really nothing wrong with this except that it can create further semantic discrepancies. This can lead to something very similar but fundamentally different than arguing semantics: selling semantics. This is when you say “knowledge” and I point out a better word for that meaning, such as “information.” This is similar to the suggestions of prescriptive linguists (responsible for the “The Right Word” sections in dictionaries), but it’s definitely not what descriptive linguists prefer. I would call it abscriptive linguistics, like abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation. This is defining to the best meaning.
Both abductive reasoning and this idea of abscriptive linguistics seem to best gauge the idea of “best” by that of instrumentalism. That is to say, the best is defined in terms of effectiveness. Instrumentalists (such as I) believe that all theories and knowledge are models. And no model is better than another unless it proves to be an effective model in use.
Here is an example of semantic synthesis. These words have been slightly overloaded in a way that makes them more useful to talk about a particular topic. In this case, these are different ways to treat a problem. Solving a problem is one of several ways you can treat a problem.
Absolve
To ignore a problem (hoping it goes away or solves itself)
Resolve
To do something that yields a good enough outcome, that satisfies.
(a clinical approach)
Solve
To do something that yields the best possible outcome, that optimizes.
(a research approach)
Dissolve
To redesign the problem’s environment so it cannot exist, that idealizes.
(a design approach)
When you think about it and go to the dictionary with these words, they still work. Yet this is a new model, and based on insights gained from this and further explanation, and the implications of such a model, it can prove to be a more effective model. Obviously these definitions complement their existing definitions, hence being overloaded in the sense of operator overloading in computer science: to give a new implementation.
Anyway, I’ve been struggling to describe this sort of things for a while. I guess I just invented semantic synthesis and abscriptive linguistics.