DOYLC

F.A. Hayek is well known for his battles against Socialism and Keynesianism.  Less well known is his critique of the misapplication of the techniques and language of natural science to the social sciences - an attack on Positivism made eloquently in his 1952 book "The Counter-Revolution of  Science - Studies on The Abuse of Reason" (ISBN 0-913966-66-5).  Hayek termed this misapplication of the natural sciences "Scientism".  In Chapter 3 of the book the Nobel laureate makes some interesting observations on definitions.  Hayek writes:   'Take the concept of a "tool" or "instrument", or of any particular tool such as a hammer or barometer.  It is easily seen that these concepts cannot be interpreted to refer to "objective facts", that is, to things irrespective of what people think about them.  Careful logical analysis of these concepts will show that they all express relationships between several (at least three) terms, of which one i...

In this post we continue to learn lessons from the International Astronomical Union's definition of "planet" in 2006 (http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/).  The question tackled here is whether the IAU's definition of "planet" is a quality definition.  After close examination, it seems it is not. Here is the definition: 'A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. [1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.'   And here is the analysis of the definition: (a) The definition is not actually of "planet" but of "planets in our Solar System".  This can be mined out of the text of Resolution 5A, which states:   "RESOLUTION 5A The IAU t...

In a previous post (http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2011/11/evolution-of-definitions-problem-of.html) the topic of the IAU's 2006 redefinition of the term "planet" was discussed (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/).  There are many topics relevant to definitions surrounding this event - one of them is the problem of authority.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is the organization that came up with the new definition of "planet".  Does this make it an authority?  It does if we define "authority" as "a source of a definition that publishes, and administers, and supports this definition".  However, the term "authority" carries emotional content also.  "Authority" can imply (a) a role of active enforcement; (b) an obligation of obedience upon the body politic.  These implications exist because "authority" is a term that defines many concepts, and some of them have to do with...

I attended an interesting webinar by Golden Source ( www.thegoldensource.com ) today about Solvency II.  Solvency II is a huge pan-European insurance regulatory framework that is going to be implemented over the next few years. Not unexpectedly, definitions came up.  The point was made that an insurer has to not only know what its definitions of concepts are, but also definitions used by its partners.  For instance, an insurance company may utilize the services of many asset managers (as part of its overall investment activities).  For Solvency II purposes, the insurance company must know what its definition of e.g. "Country of Risk" is, and also how each of its Asset Manager partners defines "Country of Risk". This is an important point.  Data managers often only look within the enterprise when it comes to definitions.  Yet there can be compelling reasons to track the definitions that are used by other organizations which the enterprise interacts with....

In early 2006 I had the privilege of seeing NASA’s New Horizon’s mission blast off on its way to Pluto.  At that time, Pluto was a planet.  By August of the same year it was not. On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) publicly defined a planet as "a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the  neighbourhood around its orbit.". This raises questions such as: Can definitions change?  Pluto had been called a planet until the IAU changed the boundaries of the definition. What authority has the IAU to define a planet? I still think of Pluto as a planet – am I wrong to do so? The IAU’s new definition seems a bit contrived.  Will it stand up? What motivation did the IAU have to change the definition?  Definitions can change, and should as we get to know reality better....