Correctness in Function Definition

[kouhai]

Or IM element definition, or information aspect definition. Whatever. Definitions can be logically evaluated if they're inferred from axioms or if they're part of a system which makes claims that support or contradict them, inferred definitions can be evaluated based on both, non-inferential "just stated" ones only the latter. Is it still possible to logically argue for or against function definitions outside of that ? The claims made in typology regarding definitions do not solely pertain to reality itself but to how patterns/phenomena present in it can be categorized and labeled. What I mean by the labeling/categorizing thing is how, for example, a Typology system says 'Si is X', implying 'X exists' but not merely stopping at an establishment of it's existence and going on to give it a certain label. What I am concerned with is the labeling aspect (and yeah, defining can be and mostly is clarification of the meaning of a given label rather than creating it, doesn't affect what my main point here). This allows for most if not all definitions to be considered and judged as true or false, but only in so far as they remain contained within greater systems, for any method that would be required for doing such is dependent on further claims that system would have to make outside of the definitions themselves. A definition in a vacuum does not lend itself to such.

[Exodus]

"Is it still possible to logically argue for or against function definitions outside of that ?"

There is little point in merely classifying something as Si or not. The power is in the system which tells us e.g. that Si and Ne complement each other, in addition to what they are. Obviously this can be verified by checking it against reality. Rational proofs are also possible given sufficiently clear definitions. We can also recognize truth in the system by its depth and generality.

[Rebelondeck]

This is like suggesting in the middle ages that the earth is not the center of the universe - a futile exercise where many will have to be metaphorically burnt at the stake first before the penny drops. Socionics and MBTI have nothing valid beyond classification systems for behaviour, which are subject to various (mis)interpretations because a plausible functional basis has yet to be found and no one seems to be looking in the right direction. The word 'function' has been bandied about a lot (perhaps to give things more of a hard-science feel) but I hearken again to the old adage that the first ingredient in a rabbit stew is a rabbit.

a.k.a. I/O

[kouhai]

"Is it still possible to logically argue for or against function definitions outside of that ?"

There is little point in merely classifying something as Si or not. The power is in the system which tells us e.g. that Si and Ne complement each other, in addition to what they are. Obviously this can be verified by checking it against reality. Rational proofs are also possible given sufficiently clear definitions. We can also recognize truth in the system by its depth and generality.

There is as much a point in doing such as allows for you to describe Si complementing Ne. You can verify that Si complements Ne in reality since that's a claim made about something supposed to be a fact. Can you do the same with what you define Si as ?

[Exodus]

There is as much a point in doing such as allows for you to describe Si complementing Ne.

Of course. That's why I said merely. Definitions are necessary for a theory but they aren't a theory in themselves.

You can verify that Si complements Ne in reality since that's a claim made about something supposed to be a fact. Can you do the same with what you define Si as ?

Only in the instrumental sense that it makes the system work the way it claims to work.

For example, you can come up with all kinds of reasons why or why not it's "correct" to define a taco to be a sandwich. But in practice what matters is, if you go into a sandwich shop do you expect to find tacos there? If you're a government are you going to tax tacos like sandwiches? This is like why the definition of Si can be correct or incorrect.

The dichotomies in MBTI have no "correct" definitions because there is nothing linking them together, no theory that will help you distinguish which definition works and which doesn't. You might as well add a 5th dichotomy L/not L for people who speak Spanish or not - there is nothing preventing you from doing so. Then you can debate whether L should mean Spanish speaking or French speaking - there is no criterion.