[tgambill]

The definition of validation that I am referencing.... Try this one which has several meangings depending on the subject matter Now, what you must do true to form is dissect the previous statement and show that this definition does not apply and therefore is invalid as an argument....:)) lolol....

[metmom]

Are we now into the secret little boys club of definitions? Definitions that are not dictionary definitions but *definitions as scientists use them* that are not found in the dictionaries I've checked online. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Make up a special definition for a word and carry on a discussion with someone knowing that they are using the word in common usage; and then when they use the dictionary definition of a word as virtually everybody else does and understands it to be, tell them they are wrong and sneer at them with phrases like: *Learn what you're talking about first. Go back and get a real education then we can have a real discussion*. This is almost as bad as sending people to Wikipedia to back up your statements. It smacks of elitism and intellectual snobbery.

[Dimensio]

The definition of validation that I am referencing.... Try this one which has several meangings depending on the subject matter Now, what you must do true to form is dissect the previous statement and show that this definition does not apply and therefore is invalid as an argument....:)) lol

From the link that you have provided, the first definition would be the one applied when speaking of scientific validation. The second definition would not. You are attempting "argue by dictionary" by claiming that you are allowed to select one of multiple definitions of a term as a means of disproving a claim. This is not logical; when a word is used in a context, you cannot redefine the word in that context to change the meaning as a valid counterargument.