
Essentially contested concept - networked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept
======
gipp
Important and useful idea, but what a clunky explanation; way too much
unnecessary jargon.

------
paulsutter
I prefer Minsky's term "suitcase word", which applies to most of the examples
I can think of (consciousness, emotions, morality, justice, fairness, etc).

Example: the word "morality" can create difficultly because there are so many
tangled layers of meaning that vary from person to person. Alternate, more
easily discussed words might be "ethics" (less baggage) or "conduct" (perhaps
no baggage).

~~~
zenogais
I'll take an initial stab at this.

Suitcase word seems to be a nicer name for polysemy - the ability of word to
be packed with meanings - which is often surprisingly unproblematic in
ordinary speech and writing. Essentially contested concept, on the other hand,
takes this polysemy as a starting point but adds another quality - that all
those employing a particular usage of the word seem to think that it has a
single, correct meaning/usage. Namely theirs. This parallax effect makes the
contestation constitutive (essential) to the concept.

~~~
paulsutter
How about this: "suitcase word" means one word, different concepts to
different people. Which seems aligned with your definition. "Essentially
contested concept", on the other hand, I can't think of an example of two
people contesting the same concept. I'm sure examples exist, I'm just drawing
a blank.

My own experience is that all the words I listed are surprisingly problematic
in conversations / debates. An example of difficulty. Take the question, "can
a machine be conscious"? You would expect that the tedious arguing could be
shut down with the statement "maybe that's like asking whether a submarine can
swim." But there is endless debate on the subject. Consciousness is a suitcase
word. And it seems, an "essentially contested concept", or is it? The utility
of the term is still unclear to me. Id love to hear examples, I'm probably not
seeing the full picture.

------
astazangasta
Parallels to the problem of the biological species concept: humans need to
think categorically but life doesn't operate that way, mostly.

------
Xcelerate
I've noticed this situation often. To me, the issue usually appears to stem
from the fact that someone (possibly myself) typically has a deep emotional
bias that they're unwilling/unable to recognize or acknowledge. Something
profoundly scares or disturbs them in such a fundamental way that it's easier
to imagine a reality where that problem doesn't exist than to accept an
extremely uncomfortable truth.

------
dkarapetyan
Type systems anyone?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
This applies to "weak typing" and "strong typing", definitely.

