Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definitions

On 10/16/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/15/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-14 16:05:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>
*Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is incorrect*

>
The Wikipedia page does not say that. It only says that a stipulative
definition itself cannot be correct.

>
If X cannot be incorrect then disagreeing that X is correct
is incorrect.

>
While agreement with a definition is incorrect in some sense one
can choose whether to accept the or reject the definition.
>

It says nothing about disagreement.
In particular, one may diagree with the usefulness of a stipulative
definition.

>
It seems that my reviewers on this forum make being disagreeable
a top priority.

>
Irrelevant.

 Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work
that is libelous.

Which means you need to actual prove that something is a lie, and not that you just disagree with it.
The fact that YOU are the one ignoring the predefined definition of the field you claim to be working on, means your reviews pointing that out are telling the truth.

 

>

The article also says that the scope of a stipulative definition is
restricted to an argument or discussion in given context.

>
Once a stipulated definition is provided by its author it continues
to apply to every use of this term when properly qualified.

>
No, it applies only to the contributions of the author and of those who
use the term without giving a different definition, and only in the
discussion where it was presented.
>

 "properly qualified"
 

Which you are not, and you stipulation are improper in the field, as you can't be in a formal system and try to propose definition in conflict with it.
Part of your problem seems to be that you totally don't understand how Formal Logic works, and think it is just as wild-west as general Philosophy.