Yes, but is it art?

I thought this was an interesting post by Massimo Pigliucci.

We often get into debates - even arguments - over definitions. Yes, we use language to communicate, so we must agree on common meanings for the words we use. But all too often, the entire debate ends up being about a word's definition. Agreeing on a common definition should be just the foundation for debate, not the debate itself.

And is an agreement on a common definition even necessary? In many cases, I'd say that it's not. Note my previous post about multiculturalism. It frustrates me when "multiculturalism" even comes up in a discussion, because people use the word in so many different ways. What's the point? In a case like this, just skip the word that's causing so much difficulty and tell me what you think about a specific issue, policy, circumstance, law, etc.

Pigliucci also links to this clever post by Eliezer Yudkowsky about "disguised queries." Words stand for something - sometimes things that are a bit vague or blurred around the edges. That's not necessarily bad (David Brin's second Uplift trilogy, which is excellent science fiction, showed how imprecision in language can be a positive benefit), but it really helps to know exactly why we're using a particular term.

What's the real point of using a term? Is it just political, to win a debate not from the quality of your arguments, but only by using a term with loaded connotations (like the constant repetition of "socialism" by the GOP)? Obviously, that's not valid. And what if it's not a debate at all, but a serious attempt to come to some agreement? In that case, it might be better to avoid terms in which both sides either disagree about the definition or already have a rigid, established position about it, and instead look at the details. What's really important about a particular question, and what's not?