Does this expression of 'definition' make ANY sense??

This statement is so obfuscated -- probably what he intended -- that it will probably take a couple translations just to figure out what he is saying. First I'll translate directly, then I'll translate the translation . . . lol . . . so that in the end we get plain english.

Here is the translation:

1) "No world class academic has ever defined (insert scientific word)" = no one has ever defined any word

2) "as the definition of the definer" = because that person's definition

3) "must define the definition that is being defined by the said definitioner" = must also define itself

4) "as to have been seen as effectively defining the definition of definition and defined" = in such a way as to appear as if it is both defining the given word on the one hand, and yet also what it means to define a word in general on the other,

5) "by the use of definition to define itself" = but it has done neither because it has done this by defining itself.

Put together it comes to: "no one has ever defined any word because that person's definition must also define itself in such a way as to appear as if it is both defining the given word on the one hand, and yet also what it means to define a word in general on the other, but it has done neither because it has done all this by defining itself."

Translation of translation:

It is impossible to truly define any given word. The reason for this lies in what it means to define. How would we define "definition" without getting ourselves into circular reasoning? In otherwords, we must assume what definition means to even define "definition", but how can we assume this if we have not yet defined it? The truth is, the only way we know what a definition is is by defining something else, some word, like "apple", for example. When we define a word like "apple", we just suppose that we know what a definition is. But then, when we actually try to define "definition" itself, we cannot, because, again, to define "definition" is circular. So essentially, "definition" is something we know only through the act of defining something else, since we can never define definition itself.

But if we cannot define definition directly, then we can also never truly and completely define any word. Because the definition of any word DEPENDS upon our definition of "define", which we have already said we cannot define without getting into a logical loop. Which means that when we define a word, it is a bit like building a castle on a cloud.

Thus, any definition is always to a degree social, or agreed upon, since no definition is entirely self-contained, so to speak.

Whether what he is saying is true or not, I'm not sure. But that is the best I can do of making out what he is saying.

Hope this helps!

Yes - absolutely.

What he is trying to get across is that a definition of something (anything) depends upon a subjective concensus of opinion from the definers.

For instance, I show you a picture of a cat with no tail and ask you to describe it. By our common experience we would all still recognise it as a cat and you may define it as a cat and attribute to it all the things that we have formed a concensus of opinion on that it is to be "cat-like".

You may, however, decide that, as it has no tail, it is actually a Manx and therefore has some different characteristics to the typical "cat" that you may have described above. For instance a Manx is a wild cat, whereas most cats in our common experience are tame.

You see where I'm going with this ?

It is the philosopher's role to question what we all take for granted sometimes, and to question the concensus opinion of things.

Philosophers learn to deal with the undefined, and that too quite effectively to reap definite benefits in life..... that is where they score over the scientists.

Does not make any sense.

sure