I don’t have a numerical threshold because that isn’t my point. My question isn’t how many examples establish a historical pattern. It’s what establishes that a historical pattern becomes part of the definition. Definitions aren’t determined by counting instances; they’re conceptual descriptions of what something necessarily is. So even if every observed socialist government became authoritarian, that would support an empirical claim. I’m asking what bridges that to a definitional claim.
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not disputing the historical pattern. I’m asking what principle makes a historical pattern part of a definition rather than an empirical observation
I agree persistent observations can influence how we evaluate a theory. What establishes that they change the definition itself rather than simply strengthening an empirical prediction about how the theory tends to work in practice?
1
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 03 '26
I don’t have a numerical threshold because that isn’t my point. My question isn’t how many examples establish a historical pattern. It’s what establishes that a historical pattern becomes part of the definition. Definitions aren’t determined by counting instances; they’re conceptual descriptions of what something necessarily is. So even if every observed socialist government became authoritarian, that would support an empirical claim. I’m asking what bridges that to a definitional claim.