Are the meanings of words of any dictionary, scientifically verified to mean what they ought to mean?
No, and they shouldn’t be.
The dictionary is a reflection of natural language use so the requirement for the verification of a definition to be included in this dictionary is meaningful only insofar as there is a requirement of adherence to it’s use. A system of verification of definitions assumes disapproval of others. To limit expression in such a fundamental way is to attempt to control the mind. Control of that magnitude is an unstable imbalance destined to fail and cause harm. Shaikh, are you trying to amass power over others?
I find language fantastic. I look at it in terms of requirements, did you convey your message? good… then bugger off Gramma Nazis! Long are the daysof latin descriptive words or using the etymology to ensure things are in line.
Does the person know what ya saying? do you understand them? Can convey ideas? YEES? then who cares.
The link doesn’t work for me but I can comment on the statement.
Dictionaries, at least the major English dictionaries have a lengthy set of prefaces where the function, scope and authority of dictionaries is explained. The OED, in particular takes great pains to disclaim any kind of prescriptive grammarian dogma. Dictionaries are snapshot estimations of common usage. Compilers of dictionaries are ethically obligated to formulate definitions that best and most usefully capture the common usage at the time that the edition corresponds to. It states quite explicitly that common usage should be expected to change by the time an edition is published. The authority that is granted to dictionaries is actually part of common usage. Schools, for instance need to teach language arts in terms of structure and concept and need a certain durability of definition in order to do this. Scrabble tournaments agree upon a particular dictionary because there needs to be an objective source to resolve disputes.
This topic seems to have migrated from another thread - https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/70193/
There were lots of answers (mostly refutations) to the OP’s premise which is basically a kind of tortured ontology that as far as I can tell falls somewhere between pantheism (probably unintentional) and what might be a solipsistic variant of presupposition including Kalam (I’m reaching here ).
Here’s what the OP said there -
“Answer me one question: Are the meanings of words of any dictionary scientifically verified to mean what they ought to mean?
If not then why you or anyone is dogmatic to mean the word religion the way you have been mislead to believe.
It is loud and clear that:
Words are beliefs
God is belief
science is belief”(tested)
The rhetorical trap here is to ‘prove’ via use of the dictionary that everything exists within a subject-object-verb framework and therefore (a) distinctions between science and religion are meaningless since everything rests on causal belief paradigm, and (b) that the causal paradigm inevitably leads back to the Divine.
If we are all missing the point the OP hasn’t made it that easy to get to the bottom of it, especially by leaving that thread and re-opening the same discussion here