The article demonstrates how definitions in philosophy shape scientific concepts, indicating a framework for better understanding.
The present work grew out of a question that seems simple at first glance: is the electromagnetic field matter? An attempt to answer it directly reveals a more general methodological theme: any answer depends on the conceptual and ontological apparatus in which the question is formulated at all. In the article it is proposed to treat definitions not as dictionary procedures but as ontological constructions that depend on already adopted meanings, admissible relations, and rules of concept synthesis. Using the example of matter and the electromagnetic field, the distinction is discussed between an isomorphic redefinition, which merely changes the point of view, and a productive definition, which changes the space of admissible constructions. The OST (Ontological Structure Theory) approach to concept engineering is introduced, in which new “worlds” are understood as configurations of basic categories and of operations on them. It is shown how philosophical work with definitions can serve as the zeroth stage of a scientific protocol for the transition from data to ontological categories and models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sergey Aleksandrovich Mazein (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: