> How do you know whether there's more than one definition or, instead,
> apparently different definitions are compatible or even are
interchangeable?
> And who bears the burden of proof? The one who claims that the
definitions
> are incompatible, or the one who disputes that claim? Similarly, how do
you know whether the definition is worded ambiguously or, instead, you just
don't understand it? And who bears the burden of proof? The one who
claims that the definition is ambiguous, or the one who disputes
> that claim?
Is Andrew in search or an arbiter, referee or authority ? It seems to me
there is no general answer to the questions he asks, it depends on the
context and purpose of discussion. Well, as far as the recent discussion
about the definition of productive labour is concerned, this was from
memory given fresh life by Alan's cavalier comment "if labour produces a
commodity, it's productive, why worry about it ?". I then suggested a few
"worries" which generated some discussion. Is this objectionable to OPE-L
? It occurs to me that beyond civility and intellectual honesty it is
impractical to make rules for what may be discussed and the way something
is to be discussed. Rather it is our responsibility to keep the overall
objectives of controversies in mind, and guide the discussion away from
truly byzantine disputes.
Jurriaan Bendien