- Messages
- 1,953
- Reactions
- 4,911
Sure. . .for a physicist. I would argue that the far more common definition of "work" for basically all the rest of humanity is "what useful stuff got done?". If the same useful thing got done, say moving a 500lb bolder from one side of the yard to another for <reason>, then it does not matter if that work got done by a guy with a 100lb prybar or a 600 ton crane. The same bolder got moved so the same amount of work got done.
Sure, the physicist would argue that the 600 ton crane is far more massive than a dude with a prybar, so the over all amount of "work" that got done was far greater with the crane, but for the rest of humanity that is simply a question of efficiency, not one of actual work being done.
Work in the physics sense and work in the practical sense are both valid definitions of the word. And if you can come up with another valid definition of that word then the conclusions based on that assumed definition will be correct too. Sure it may be correct for only a very limited niche of humanity, but since no one bothered to restrict the definitions in the original question we cannot rule out this conclusion as incorrect.
Incidentally this is why I really hate such open ended questions being posed on social media; they bait different assumed definitions and get people arguing with each other over which one of the assumed sets of criteria are "more correct". This of course drives "engagement" but also drives flame wars and instills a growing sense of "us vs. them", conditioning people to take hardline stances on topics that have legitimate alternative viewpoints.
Seriously, next time you see a flame war going on in the comments section of one of these "which answer is right" posts, look up some of the words being used. Do any of them have multiple definitions? How about context sensitive definitions (like "work" does in the common vernacular vs. the hard sciences)? I bet you if you dissect these arguments and distill them down to their core essence they will all be arguments over which definition is the "correct" one to use, and very few people in that same comments section will even know that that is the roots of the arguments they are all making.
My argument is "if you fail to properly scope your question to eliminate multiple definitions then any answer based on a valid definition can be correct". Or, more bluntly, your failure to define your terms does not make me incorrect when I use some random correct definition of those terms to come to a conclusion. You have simply stated a question that has multiple correct answer, depending on which set of assumptions you choose to use when answering it.
