Definition as Content and Container

We often use terms without fully thinking out how we are using them - particularly if abstraction is involved.  The other day I was looking at a data modeling tool, and asked a colleague "What did you put into the definition?".  It suddenly occurred to me that I was not talking about the content of the definition, but about the definition field into which I could type the content.

After thinking about it some more, I realized that the definition field is a container which we are free to use as we want (at least in the tool I was working with).  So an immediate question is, how do we want to structure what goes into this field (e.g. with section headings) and what metadata about the definition do we want to put in (e.g. what person last updated it)?  

Of course, the more sophisticated tools have these separate elements of the definition more explicitly segregated.  The "definition" is a set of smaller containers inside a bigger container. Perhaps this might mean that a different set of questions arises, such as the order in which we develop content in this set of smaller containers.  Or perhaps such questions depend on the actual set of containers that are exposed to use in each of these tools.  Either way, I think questions arise.

It is good to be concerned about how to develop good definitional content, quite apart from what this content is stored in.  However, the fact that some kind of container exists (whether simple or complex) means that we have to be concerned with the management of the container also.  Since both container and content are signified by the term "definition" there is ample scope for confusion here.  

I do not think this is being pedantic.  Information Knowledge Management is difficult because it is dealing with things that are inherently abstract and immaterial.  It means we really have to think our way through it, and it is easy to make mistakes.  Keeping in mind that there is a distinction between container and content may help us to avoid a few of these mistakes.

How is a Definition Different from an Explanation? (Part 2)

In Part I of this series (http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-is-definition-different-from.html), we explored explanation defined as "bringing a mind to an understanding of a topic".  

There is, however, another form of explanation, of which Aristotle said "We believe ourselves to know a thing when we are acquainted with its cause" (Posterior Analytics, II C. II para 1).

One way to provide this kind of explanation is by arguing from the cause to the effect.  Traditionally this involved using syllogisms where the cause was in the major premiss and the effect was in the conclusion.  E.g. All ellipses show a pattern of positions X; the orbit of Mars shows a pattern of positions X; therefore the orbit of Mars is an ellipse.

This form of explanation is very satifying, and it might seem natural to try to incorporate it into definitions.  However, there are reasons not to do so.  First, the above form requires putting the concept to be defined into propositions, and then putting the propositions into a syllogism (an argument).  And then putting all of that into the definition.  But if all this is part of the definition, and the definition is supposed to substitute for the term being defined, we would seem to end up with an infinite regression.  Of course, this is always a danger when the term to be defined is in the definition, but having an argument in the definition seems to assure this as the term has to be included in the argument.  At least it seems that way to me - although I cannot find any description of my opinion in the literature, and I will willingly defer to others who can prove me wrong.

Secondly, putting argument into a definition exposes the definition to much greater chance of error.  The propositions may be false, and the argumentation may be invalid.  And why would we put the concept into propositions and arguments before we have a completed definition - surely that is jumping the gun.

My provisional conclusion, therefore, is that causal explanations should not be placed in definitions.  

BUT, there is another consideration.  In modern enterprises, definitions are containers as well as content.  If an explanation has to be provided, and there is nowhere else to put it, then it should be put into the definition (as container, not content).  The distinction between container and content is not found (at least by me) in traditional logic.  Yet it is a most important consideration.  I suppose we need another blog on definition as container vs. content.

If we are forced to put a causal explanation in the definition (container) then at least get the concept defined fully (content) before any explanation is provided, so the explanation is not part of the true definition (content).