deepstash
Beta
The Appeal to Definition Fallacy: When People Misuse the Dictionary
An example of the appeal to definition
"We should ignore the theory of evolution because the dictionary says that a theory is just an opinion that you have about something you can't prove."
The person using this fallacy is basing their statement on a specific definition of the word "theory" while ignoring alternative definitions that will better capture the meaning of the term as it's used in a scientific context.
73 SAVES
This is a professional note extracted from an online article.
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Remember anything
IDEA EXTRACTED FROM:
6
Key Ideas
The argument from dictionary
The argument from a dictionary is a logical fallacy and happens when someone's argument is based, in a problematic way, on the definition of a particular term as it appears in a dictionary. The problem with these arguments:
- Dictionaries are descriptive, meaning that they attempt to describe how people use the language. It is not prescriptive in that it instructs them how to do so in a definitive manner.
- Dictionaries don't always reflect the meaning of words as they're used by people.
- Different dictionaries can list different definitions for a given term, and may even have several definitions for the same word.
An example of the appeal to definition
"We should ignore the theory of evolution because the dictionary says that a theory is just an opinion that you have about something you can't prove."
The person using this fallacy is basing their statement on a specific definition of the word "theory" while ignoring alternative definitions that will better capture the meaning of the term as it's used in a scientific context.
Appeal to definition: when the process becomes fallacious
Not every use of a definition is necessarily fallacious. If the definition is properly justified and is selected in a properly justified way, it is generally not fallacious. However, it is fallacious when at least one of the following conditions are true:
- There is no valid reason for using the definition.
- The definition was cherry-picked out of a range of possible definitions.
Responding to an appeal to definition
When responding to appeals to definition, it is useful to know the terms denotation, which is the literal meaning of a word, and connotation, which is a feeling the word evokes beyond its denotation.
- Explain why the use of the definition is inappropriate in this case.
- Explain why the proposed definition is flawed. Other dictionaries may offer different meanings than the one your opponent has chosen.
- You can sometimes benefit from using specific and relevant examples to show why such arguments are problematic.
- You can ask the person using the fallacy to correctly justify their reasoning in light of your criticism.
Modern dictionaries
The structure and use of dictionaries have changed as new technologies developed.
- Easily available online dictionaries make it easier for people to use and cherry-pick preferred definitions in their arguments.
- Dictionaries can be quickly updated with new words or new meanings of existing words.
- Dictionaries are able to list a wider range of meanings and connotations.
Types of definitions
- Reportive definitions aim to accurately capture the meaning of a term as it's ordinarily used.
- Precising definitions add relevant criteria to a reportive definition to make it more precise for a specific purpose.
- Stipulative definitions are used to establish a specific purpose. For example, "for the purpose of the present document, the term 'contract' means..."
- A persuasive definition is a stipulative definition that is dressed up as a reportive definition or as a claim in an argument. The terms are redefined to present one's preferred definitions as facts.
- Ostensive definitions are based on examples of the word that is being described. For example, "liquid" could be "things like water and oil."
- Misleading definitions relies on misleading language so that its intended meaning is different than the meaning that most people will use.
- Operational definitions are used to define certain measures where an exact, reproducible definition is needed, such as in scientific studies.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Virtue signaling
Virtue signaling means speaking or behaving in a way that’s meant to prove a person's good moral values.
If a person affirms on social media that they fully support...
Engaging in virtue signaling
Individuals can engage in virtue signaling, as can groups, companies, or governments.
Someone might even engage in virtue signaling in private, by saying things that are meant to convince themselves of their own good character.
How to respond to virtue signaling
- Make sure that a person is really virtue signaling.
- Clearly outline the issues tied with this kind of behavior.
- Avoid using the concept of virtue signaling as a trivial way to dismiss others without consideration.
- Be aware of the fact that just because someone is doing something that demonstrates their good moral values doesn’t mean that they’re virtue signaling.
4 more ideas
4
Key Ideas
The argument from incredulity
Is a logical fallacy where someone concludes that since they can’t believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false and vice versa.
Its 2 basic forms:
“I c...
Basic structure of an argument from incredulity
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
Conclusions: proposition X is false.
It’s ok to be incredulous
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.
one more idea
6
Key Ideas
False equivalence
It is a logical fallacy and it occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equal because they share some characteristics, regardless of the notable differences...
The problem with false equivalence
- The equivalence exaggerates the degree of similarity. I.e, stating that two people share a specific personality trait, but ignoring that they differ in other aspects of this trait.
- The equivalence exaggerates the importance of the similarity. I.e, focusing on a personality trait that two people share while ignoring that many other people also share this trait.
- The equivalence ignores important differences.
- The equivalence ignores differences in orders of magnitude.
Responding to a false equivalence
- Show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, overemphasized, or oversimplified.
- Highlight the differences between the things being equated.
- Explain why these differences are more significant than related similarities.
- Provide counterexamples.
- Ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their equivalence is valid, and then demonstrate the issues with the reasoning they provide.
3 more ideas