Hubbry Logo
Fallacies of definitionFallacies of definitionMain
Open search
Fallacies of definition
Community hub
Fallacies of definition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fallacies of definition
Fallacies of definition
Fallacies of definition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy.[1] Definitions may fail to have merit, because they are overly broad,[2][3][4] overly narrow,[3][4] or incomprehensible;[4] or they use obscure or ambiguous language,[2] contain mutually exclusive parts,[3] or (perhaps most commonly[5]) are circular.[2][6]

Circularity

[edit]
Circular definition of inflammable liquid[5][clarification needed]

If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, this is known as a circular definition, akin to circular reasoning: neither offers enlightenment about what one wanted to know.[7] "It is a fallacy because by using a synonym in the definiens the reader is told nothing significantly new."[5]

A straightforward example would be to define Jew as "a person believing in Judaism", and Judaism as "the religion of the Jewish people", which would make Judaism "the religion of the people believing in Judaism".[citation needed]

Incongruity: overly broad or narrow

[edit]

A definition intended to describe a given set of individuals fails if its description of matching individuals is incongruous: too broad (excessively loose with parameters) or too narrow (excessively strict with parameters). For example, "a shape with four sides of equal length" is not a sufficient definition for square, because squares are not the only shapes that can have four sides of equal length; rhombi do as well. Likewise, defining rectangle as "a shape with four perpendicular sides of equal length" is inappropriate because it is too narrow, as it describes only squares while excluding all other kinds of rectangles, thus being a plainly incorrect definition.

If a cow were defined as an animal with horns, this would be overly broad (including goats, for example), while if a cow were defined as a black-and-white quadruped, this would be both overly narrow (excluding: all-black, all-white, all-brown and white-brown cows, for example)[3] and overly broad (including Dalmatians, for example).

Obscurity

[edit]

Definitions can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language. This can lead to circular definitions. Definitions should be defined in the most prosaic form of language to be understood, as failure to elucidate provides fallacious definitions.[7] Figurative language can also be misinterpreted. For example, golden eyes in a biography may lead the reader to think that the person was fictional.

An example of obscurity is Samuel Johnson's definition for oats: "A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people."[8] The thing defined (oats) should be pointed out rather than remain obscure.

Mutual exclusivity

[edit]

The definition completely excludes what is being defined. For example, a cow might be defined as a flying animal with no legs.[3] In reality a cow has legs and cannot fly, but this example claims to define a cow using a definition that is opposite to what a cow actually is. "Cow" and "flying animal with no legs" are mutually exclusive to each other: they cannot refer to the same thing.

Self-contradictory requirements

[edit]

Definitions may fail by imposing conflicting requirements, making it impossible for them to apply to anything at all. For example, a cow being defined as a legless quadruped. These requirements may also be mutually exclusive.[citation needed]

Definist fallacy

[edit]

The definist fallacy is a logical fallacy, coined by William Frankena in 1939 in a critique of the "naturalistic fallacy", that involves the definition of one property in terms of a non-synonym.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fallacies of definition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Fallacies of definition are informal logical fallacies that occur when a definition of a key term in an is flawed, imprecise, or misleading, thereby invalidating the reasoning or leading to incorrect conclusions. These fallacies typically arise in the context of reportive definitions, which aim to capture the ordinary or accepted usage of a term, or stipulative definitions, which propose a specific meaning for argumentative purposes. A good definition must be neither too broad—including items or instances beyond the term's proper scope—nor too narrow—excluding legitimate instances of the term—while avoiding other defects such as circularity, obscurity, , negative phrasing, or . For example, defining a "" as "a piece of furniture for sitting" is too broad because it encompasses benches and stools, which are not typically considered chairs, whereas defining "" solely as a " system worshiping a creator " is too narrow, as it omits non-theistic traditions like certain forms of or . Circular definitions represent another common type, where the term being defined is used within its own explanation, rendering the definition uninformative and begging the question. An instance might be defining "detoxification" as "the process by which toxins are removed from the body," if "detoxification" is synonymous with that process, creating a loop without adding clarity. Additional pitfalls include obscure or vague definitions, which use unclear or overly complex language that fails to illuminate the term (e.g., defining a "political party" as a "multitude of human inhabitants organized for governance"), and negatively phrased definitions, which describe what the term is not rather than what it is (e.g., a "sandal" as "not a closed shoe"). Fallacies of definition are particularly problematic in philosophical, legal, and scientific , where precise is essential for valid argumentation, as they can covertly shift meanings to support a conclusion without addressing the actual issue. To avoid them, definitions should adhere to established criteria: providing necessary and sufficient conditions, ensuring clarity and neutrality, and aligning with the term's intended use in the argument.

Introduction

Nature of Fallacies of Definition

Fallacies of definition refer to errors in the construction or application of that compromise the clarity, accuracy, or of terms in communication and argumentation. These fallacies occur when a definition fails to properly elucidate the definiendum—the term or being defined—resulting in miscommunication or flawed reasoning. According to Irving M. Copi in his seminal work on logic, such errors arise from linguistic or conceptual shortcomings that distort the intended meaning, making the definition unreliable for analytical purposes. Key characteristics of fallacies of definition include a to capture the essential attributes of the definiendum, which can lead to , inferences, or biased interpretations in arguments. For instance, definitions may be vague, ambiguous, or misleading, preventing precise application in . This misalignment between the definiens (the defining expression) and the definiendum undermines the foundational of definitions in logic, where terms must serve as stable building blocks for valid reasoning. Copi emphasizes that these fallacies are particularly insidious in informal contexts, as they exploit natural language's flexibility without adhering to logical rigor. To identify fallacies of definition, one applies criteria that ensure definitions are non-circular, non-contradictory, appropriately scoped, and expressed in clear language. A valid definition must neither presuppose the term being defined (as in circularity) nor impose incompatible requirements, while avoiding excessive breadth or narrowness that misfits the term's conventional usage; it should also prioritize precision over obscurity. These standards trace their origins to Aristotelian logic, where fallacies involving linguistic deception, such as , were first systematically analyzed in works like the Sophistical Refutations, and were further developed in 20th-century through texts like Copi's Introduction to Logic (1953), which formalized rules for definitional accuracy. A general example is a definition of "" as "the absence of constraints," which vaguely misrepresents the concept by omitting contextual nuances like legal or moral boundaries, thus inviting erroneous applications in . As a subset of informal fallacies, fallacies of definition differ from formal fallacies, such as syllogistic errors, by relying on semantic or linguistic flaws rather than structural invalidity in deductive forms.

Importance in Critical Thinking

Fallacies of definition significantly impact argumentation by introducing ambiguities or inconsistencies that lead to invalid conclusions and misunderstandings across various domains. In legal discourse, imprecise definitions can result in misinterpretations of statutes, potentially altering case outcomes. Similarly, in political and scientific contexts, they facilitate manipulation by allowing terms to shift meanings subtly, thereby supporting biased narratives or flawed hypotheses. These effects undermine the reliability of reasoning, as flawed definitions propagate unsupported claims that appear persuasive on the surface. Detecting fallacies of definition requires systematic strategies focused on consistency, scope alignment, and clarity to ensure terms function reliably within arguments. One approach involves verifying that a 's breadth and narrowness appropriately match the intended referents, avoiding overinclusion or exclusion of examples. Substitution tests prove effective for issues like , where replacing a term with its alternative meanings reveals whether the argument collapses. and cross-contextual analysis further aid detection by exposing obscurity or circularity, such as when a relies on the term itself without adding explanatory value. These methods promote rigorous , preventing subtle errors from derailing . Historically, the recognition of definition-related fallacies traces back to , who in works like the Prior Analytics and Sophistical Refutations stressed the need for precise terms to support valid syllogisms and avoid deceptive refutations, laying foundational principles for logical coherence. In contemporary settings, these fallacies remain relevant amid rising , where biased or vague definitions in media amplify echo chambers on social platforms, distorting public understanding of complex issues like policy debates. This persistence highlights their role in eroding trust in information ecosystems. The broader implications of fallacies of definition extend to weakening skills overall, as habitual exposure fosters acceptance of flawed reasoning and hinders analytical depth. To prevent them, communicators should select definitions suited to : lexical for reporting conventional usage, stipulative for introducing terms, or precising to resolve ambiguities in precise scenarios. By prioritizing such practices, individuals can mitigate risks like circular definitions, enhancing argumentative integrity.

Fallacies Involving Logical Coherence

Circular Definitions

A circular definition occurs when a term, known as the definiendum, is explained using itself or terms that are essentially synonymous with it, thereby failing to provide any substantive clarification or new information. This form of definitional fallacy begs the question by presupposing the very it aims to define, resulting in a loop that does not advance understanding. Philosophers and logicians identify this as a key error in constructing nominal definitions, where the goal is to elucidate meaning through distinct attributes or relations. The mechanism of a undermines comprehension by assuming prior knowledge of the term being defined, creating a that halts explanatory progress. In logical terms, it equates to a form of petitio principii within definitional contexts, where the explanation relies on unelucidated synonyms or the term itself, preventing the reduction of complex ideas to simpler ones. This circularity is particularly problematic in fields like and , as it obscures rather than reveals conceptual boundaries. Historically, the issue of circular definitions was critiqued by in his (1690), where he described them as a common failure in nominal definitions that offer no real insight into the nature of ideas. Locke argued that such definitions merely restate the word's conventional usage without breaking down its components, leading to inadequate communication of meaning. This perspective influenced later , emphasizing the need for definitions to employ non-circular, primitive terms. Classic examples illustrate the fallacy's structure. For instance, defining "" as "the religion of the " and "a Jew" as "a person who practices " forms a mutual circularity, as each term depends on the other without independent criteria. Another example is "poverty is the state of lacking sufficient ," where "sufficient" implicitly refers back to the conditions of poverty, offering no external measure. These cases demonstrate how circularity can arise in both religious and socioeconomic contexts, perpetuating . The consequences of circular definitions include an in attempts to explain or apply the term, as each clarification loops back without resolution. This error is prevalent in dictionaries that inadvertently use synonyms without deeper or in casual , where it reinforces unexamined assumptions. In academic or legal settings, it can lead to flawed reasoning or concepts. To avoid circular definitions, one should employ primitive terms—basic concepts assumed to be understood—or ostensive definitions, which point directly to examples or instances of the term in context. For example, defining "" by indicating red objects rather than using synonymous color terms ensures non-circular clarity. Rigorous construction, as advocated in modern logic, involves testing for between definiens and definiendum.

Self-Contradictory Requirements

A self-contradictory requirement in a arises when the defining characteristics impose mutually incompatible conditions on the term being defined (definiendum), making the logically impossible and thus incoherent./09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.02:_Identifying_Self-Contradictions_and_Oxymorons) This type of occurs specifically within the structure of the definition itself, where the definiens (the phrase providing the meaning) contains elements that cannot coexist without violating basic logical principles. The mechanism underlying this fallacy is a direct breach of , which states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. As articulated by in his Metaphysics (Book Gamma), it is impossible for the same attribute to belong and not belong simultaneously to the same subject in the same respect, a principle essential to coherent thought and . In a self-contradictory definition, the defined cannot exist under the specified criteria because the conditions negate one another, rendering the entire definition void of explanatory power. Representative examples illustrate this issue clearly. Defining a "" as a "married man" creates an inherent contradiction, as "bachelor" conventionally denotes an unmarried male, while "married" excludes that status, making the term refer to an impossible entity. Similarly, describing a "square circle" as a geometric figure that is both perfectly round and has four equal straight sides imposes opposing properties—curvature versus straight edges—that cannot be reconciled in ./09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.02:_Identifying_Self-Contradictions_and_Oxymorons) This fallacy has deep roots in Aristotelian logic, where the law of non-contradiction serves as a foundational axiom for avoiding incoherent propositions in metaphysics and reasoning. Modern logic texts, such as Bradley Dowden's Logical Reasoning (2017), highlight it as a basic error in consistency that undermines conceptual clarity./09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.02:_Identifying_Self-Contradictions_and_Oxymorons) To detect self-contradictory requirements, examine the definiens for antonyms, negations, or logical opposites that cannot simultaneously apply, such as paired terms like "married" and "unmarried" or "legless" and "four-legged."/09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.02:_Identifying_Self-Contradictions_and_Oxymorons) Such analysis reveals the internal inconsistency without needing external evidence. The implications of this fallacy are significant: it renders the definition useless for , identification, or , as it describes a nonexistent or , often arising unintentionally from hasty or poorly considered formulations in philosophical, legal, or everyday . Unlike circular definitions, which undermine coherence through uninformative , self-contradictory requirements fail due to outright logical impossibility./09:_Consistency_and_Inconsistency/9.02:_Identifying_Self-Contradictions_and_Oxymorons)

Fallacies Involving Semantic Fit

Incongruity: Overly Broad or Narrow

Incongruity in definitions arises when the definiens fails to match the proper extension of the definiendum, either by being overly broad—encompassing instances that do not belong to the class—or overly narrow—excluding valid instances that do belong—resulting in a mismatch between the defining expression and the term's real-world scope. This fallacy undermines the precision required for effective communication and reasoning, as the definition no longer accurately delineates the concept's boundaries. An overly broad definition includes extraneous items beyond the intended class, leading to an extension that overreaches the term's conventional or essential usage. For instance, defining "" as " with four equal sides" is too broad because it encompasses rhombi that lack right angles, such as non-square parallelograms with equal sides. Similarly, Copi, , and McMahon illustrate this with "" defined as "any winged creature," which erroneously includes and bats alongside true birds. Conversely, an overly narrow definition omits legitimate cases, restricting the extension unduly. An example is defining "a " as "a with four equal sides," which excludes non-square rectangles that have right angles but unequal adjacent sides. Copi et al. provide another case: defining "" simply as "a car," which fails to include trucks, bicycles, or other conveyances. This fallacy is rooted in the classical genus-species structure of definitions, where a term is defined by specifying its (a broader class) and differentia (distinguishing features), a method exemplified in Plato's dialectical dialogues such as the and Statesman, where division seeks to isolate essences through . However, as critiqued in Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic, such structures can falter if the genus or differentia misaligns with essential attributes, violating the rule that definitions must neither overextend nor underrepresent the class (Rule 3, p. 101). In , an overly broad generates false positives in , attributing the term to inappropriate entities and blurring conceptual distinctions, while an overly narrow one produces false negatives, overlooking pertinent examples and limiting applicability. To correct this incongruity, the or differentia must be adjusted to align precisely with the term's essential attributes, ensuring the definiens captures the full, accurate extension without surplus or deficiency.

Mutual Exclusivity

Mutual exclusivity in definitions occurs when the criteria provided in the definiens are so mismatched with the known properties of the definiendum that the term itself cannot possibly satisfy the , rendering it self-defeating and absurd. This type of , often termed an incongruous definition in traditional logic, arises from attributing essential features that are incompatible with the term's established meaning or empirical , effectively excluding all instances, including prototypical ones. The mechanism involves a complete misalignment between the defining attributes and the term's core characteristics, where the features are mutually exclusive with the subject's properties. For instance, if a definition requires attributes that contradict observable facts about the term, no can fit, making the definition useless for communication or reasoning. This self-defeating nature stems from violating the rule that a definition must capture the essential attributes of the definiendum without introducing irrelevant or contradictory elements. Representative examples illustrate this fallacy clearly. Defining "a cow" as "a flying animal with no legs" fails because cows are terrestrial mammals with four legs and do not fly, excluding cows entirely from their own . Similarly, describing "water" as "a dry substance that burns easily" is incongruous, as is a that extinguishes fire and is not dry, thus rendering the applicable to nothing resembling . These absurd constructions highlight how the operates through blatant incompatibility. Such fallacies often emerge in humorous contexts, erroneous explanations, or misguided attempts to redefine terms without regard for their conventional usage, appearing in lists of logical errors in works on argumentation. For example, they parallel discussions of defective definitions in guides to , where mismatched attributes undermine conceptual clarity. The implications are significant: the definition becomes pointless, as it provides no informative value and can mislead by obscuring the term's actual meaning, ultimately revealing a lack of understanding of the concept being defined. Unlike mere issues of scope in overly broad or narrow definitions, represents an extreme form of semantic misfit where the extension of the definiens intersects with zero instances of the , including its cases. This parallels but exceeds typical incongruity problems in severity, as it achieves total exclusion rather than partial overlap.

Fallacies Involving Clarity and Usage

Obscurity

The of obscurity arises when a definition uses vague, metaphorical, or more complex terminology than the term it seeks to explain, thereby failing to clarify and instead deepening confusion about the . This , also known as obscurum per obscurius (explaining the obscure by something more obscure), violates fundamental rules of in logic by prioritizing stylistic flair over precision. Obscurity manifests in subtypes such as , where terms admit multiple interpretations, and figurative , which employs metaphors or poetic expressions that evoke rather than delineate. For instance, an ambiguous definition might describe "" as "fair play" without specifying the , allowing it to shift between legal, , or athletic senses. Figurative examples often appear in literary works, such as defining "" as "," which paints a vivid image but offers no analytical insight into the emotion's components. A classic illustration is Samuel Johnson's entry for "oats" in his 1755 A Dictionary of the English Language: "A grain, which in is generally given to horses, but in supports the people." While the botanical note ("It is of the grass leaved tribe") provides minimal clarification, the witty cultural aside obscures the term's essential attributes, rendering it more anecdotal than instructive. The mechanism behind obscurity lies in its elevation of rhetorical or aesthetic elements over logical transparency, thereby increasing on the audience without enhancing understanding. Such definitions are prevalent in literary and rhetorical traditions, where can serve expressive purposes, but they falter in analytical by substituting complexity for elucidation. Johnson's exemplifies this blend of humor and inadequacy, as its entries often prioritize etymological or quotational flair over straightforward , a approach critiqued in rhetorical scholarship for undermining definitional utility. The consequences of obscure definitions include impeded communication and potential misinterpretation, particularly in persuasive contexts like , where can manipulate perceptions without committing to verifiable claims. In , obscurity may intentionally foster interpretive depth, but in argumentative or educational settings, it erodes trust and clarity. This can compound other issues, such as circularity, if the obscure terms inadvertently reference back to the original concept. To remedy obscurity, definitions should employ literal, precise synonyms or examples that match or simplify the term's , ensuring without loss of meaning—for example, defining "oats" as "the edible seeds of a cereal grass plant (Avena sativa), typically ground into or fed as livestock ." Adhering to rules like avoiding overly complex language promotes effective and discourse.

Definist Fallacy

The definist fallacy, also known as the , occurs when a term is defined in a way that incorporates controversial, loaded, or non-equivalent attributes, which are then treated as neutral or uncontroversial in an argument, thereby or misleading the discussion. This error was first identified and termed by philosopher William K. Frankena in his 1939 paper "The ," where he critiqued attempts to define ethical concepts like "good" in terms that presuppose the very properties under debate, such as equating "good" with natural properties in a manner that assumes their . Frankena argued that such definitions shift the burden of proof unfairly, as the loaded elements are smuggled into the term without justification, rendering the argument circular or question-begging. The mechanism of the definist fallacy involves substituting a biased or non-synonymous to "define away" objections, often by embedding evaluative or ideological content that favors one side. For instance, one might argue that a X is immoral because it lacks "," where "" is defined as the absence of X, thus preemptively resolving the dispute through the definition itself rather than . This tactic exploits the ambiguity between a term's descriptive meaning and its emotive or persuasive force, allowing the arguer to treat the definition as objective while it actually advances their position covertly. In ethical debates, an example is defining "good" simply as "what I approve of," which then trivially wins moral disputes by reducing them to personal preference, avoiding substantive analysis. Another common illustration appears in political , such as defining "" as "rule by the wise" to argue against , thereby dismissing popular vote mechanisms as undemocratic without addressing their merits. Philosophically, the definist fallacy connects to emotivist theories of language, as articulated by in Language, Truth and Logic (1936), where ethical terms are seen as expressing emotions rather than facts, making loaded definitions a tool for persuasion rather than truth-seeking. It has also been critiqued as a variant of in standard logic texts, where the shift in a term's meaning across an creates , as discussed in Irving M. Copi's Introduction to Logic (various editions), which highlights persuasive definitions in political contexts like equating with "democracy extended to the economy" to sway opinion emotively. These connections underscore how the fallacy undermines logical coherence by prioritizing semantic manipulation over clear reasoning. In contemporary ideological arguments, the definist fallacy remains prevalent, particularly in post-2000 political discourse, where terms like "fake news" are often redefined narrowly to label opposing viewpoints as inherently false without evidence, exacerbating polarization. Such usages, as analyzed in studies of semantic disputes, allow debaters to evade scrutiny by reframing the issue through biased stipulations. To avoid this fallacy, arguers should employ neutral, contextually agreed-upon definitions that reflect standard usage, explicitly disclose any stipulative changes, and separate descriptive elements from evaluative ones to ensure transparency and fairness in debate.
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.