system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What makes definition of a word the "correct" one?

 Greetings everyone. Let me elaborate and give you some context for the question posted above:  
Quite some time ago, on another subreddit, one of the users created a post titled "Should we cure aging?", with a video of 40 minutes long attached, where he expressed his thoughts on the matter. Now, what is generally meant by aging in the context of life extention is senescense - gradual detirioration of organism, that leads to loss of ability, reduction in quality of life and general survivability. Curing this basically means reverting that damage, so the person is young and healthy again, and ideally making it so that it stays that way for as long as they want to live. Certain another user did the following: He produced a definition of aging that included EVERY PROCESS that can be expected to happen "naturally" in human body over the course of life, from gestation to senescense and death, including even something as optional as pregnacy. Then he declared that  definition to be "THE CORRECT DEFINITION" and aggressively dismissed anyone who dared to not agree 100%, utterly ignoring what the OP meant. Based on that definition of his, he then proceeded to "prove" that curing aging is impossible "by definition". Which of course says nothing about the practical possibility of achieving what was meant by the OP. So i have these questions to ask:  


**1) What can make a given definition the "correct one"? Are there any objective criteria?**   


**2) How can one demonstrate, that one definition of a word is better than another to convince someone to accept it?**   


3) What is it called, when a person concludes that something about a thing is impossible in practice, based solely on the definition that they gave to the word that denotes it? For example. somebody points at a house, and says "it is a house", then he gives the following definition of "house" - "any construction that can't burn". Let's imagine that this is his house, and suddenly it caught fire. You are pointing that to him, and he dismisses you, saying "That's asinine. My house can not burn BY DEFINITION". It's propably a known and researched fallacy, i just don't know the name of it.  


Thanks in advance.
gpt
A lot of important philosophical disputes sometimes turn into “terminological disputes” like this one. One thing that often helps is to clarify all possible definitions someone could mean, explain which you will focus on, and then argue based on that. In the “aging” example, someone *could* go on to keep using a different definition than yours, but as long as you agree “we should stop “aging” in sense 1 but allow “aging” in sense 2”, then it doesn’t really matter which one you *call* “aging”. 

But sometimes, particularly with bedrock normative vocabulary like “right” and “wrong”, you can’t just concede the term to the opponent and use a new one. Those situations are rare though.