This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would argue that "unmarried adult male" is a pleonasm. If one is confused about "bachelor" but not "marriage" or "males" then one knows that only adults marry. There are exceptions to everything but, as we say in french, the exception confirms the rule. The sentient being business isn't very helpful either, as some might argue that X is "male," "adult," "sentient," and a "being" (e.g., God*) and yet claim that it isn't right to say that X is a bachelor. Therefore, I don't think that "unmarried male" is a worse definition than "unmmaried adult male sentient being."
(*) (I'm an atheist. Don't bother me with your theology. This is an example.)
Loisel 03:25 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think "Unmarried adult male Homo Sapiens" is better.
-- Reductio ad absurdum seems to talk about the same matter.
What is saying that God isn't a bachelor? CherubAgent1440 ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The examples in this article would be more useful if each bad definition were accompanied by a good one. -- Doradus 18:48, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Circular definitions aren't necessarily invalid. For example, the recursive definition of an ancestor as "one's parent, or one's parent's ancestor", is legitimate and arguably useful.
It is also legitimate to define a term using a synonym or near synonym, so long as the synonym has a clear, independent definition.
Townmouse 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a problem with the claim that circular definitions are automatically fallacious. All definitions are, by necessity, circular. Take a dictionary of the entire English language (or some appropriate subset of the language). Now, every word in the dictionary is defined using the English language, which means each word is defined in terms of the other words, which are in turn defined in terms of still other words. Even words not used in the definition of another word are still circular, because every definition will eventually result in one or more loops of some type.
Of course, this all makes sense as soon as we realize that words aren't defined by dictionaries, but by experience, and that dictionaries assume the reader already knows a decent number of words through experience, from which base the rest of the language can be defined. But it also means the definition "Judaism is the religion of the Jews", and a reverse definition "Jews are people who practice Judaism" are perfectly acceptable, under the assumption that the reader already knows one of the two definitions.
A fallaciously circular definition is then a definition which happens to be useless to the particular reader because that reader doesn't have the appropriate real-world experience with which to understand the necessarily circular definitions. The definitions above are likely to be fallaciously circular to anyone who doesn't already know them, but aren't inherently so. 199.127.114.114 ( talk) 02:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Another problem in the Circularity section is the "inflammable liquid" definition. "Liquid" isn't circular with "liquid", it is "liquid". The assumption there is that most people already know the word "liquid" without extra help. "Inflammable", on the other hand, is a rather odd word, because most people would look at the prefix "in" and logically conclude it means "not", as in "incapable", "indescribable", etc. So defining "inflammable" as "easily bursts into flames" tells the reader their default presumption is wrong and gives a correct definition.
From there, the phrase "easily bursts into flames" isn't directly circular with "inflammable". You might well see the word as a synonym of the phrase, but the phrase will be defined by the constituent words "easily", "bursts", "into", and "flames". From Merriam-Webster, those words are defined as "without difficulty", "to emerge or spring suddenly" (the phrase "burst into flames" is given here as an example, but not a definition), "to the state, condition, or form of", and "a state of blazing combustion" (again, the phrase "the car burst into flame" is used as an example, but not a definition), respectively.
As I mentioned above, all words are indirectly circular, but "inflammable liquid" isn't directly circular using the definition of "inflammable" currently given with Merriam-Webster's definitions of the words from there, and is therefore a bad example of a fallaciously circular definition. 199.127.114.114 ( talk) 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Should this article not be named in the singular - "Fallacy of definition"? I'm not a logician so I'll leave it to others. Rwxrwxrwx 13:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There are several different kinds of definition fallacies:
Incongruous Definition, Negative Definition, Obscure or figurative Definition, Extraneous Definition
yes they are all about a defintion, but they are different kinds of fallacies, therefore fallacies of defintion! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.237.157 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The meanings of 'beautiful' and 'aesthetic' are nothing like synonymous! Bitbut 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This may be a bit nitpicky, but "object used to sit on" doesn't seem like a too narrow definition to me. After all, you can use a table, wardrobe, bed, etc to sit on. Wouldn't "designed to be sat on" "or meant to be sat on" make a better example? Baranxtu ( talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
I propose that Fallacies of definition be merged into Formal fallacy. I think that the content in this article does not warrant it having its own exclusive article. With all due respect, Orpherebus. ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Definitions are not arguments, though they may be used in such, and they may be argued about. In light of this, and seeing as this proposal hasn't attracted any support, I am closing this proposal as failed. If anyone objects, they are of course welcome to revive the discussion. Paradoctor ( talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Both sentences in the introduction make the use/mention error (see WP:REFERS), and I can't parse the meaning of the second sentence. I would prefer something like "Fallacies of definition are ways in which a definition may fail to be meaningful. They are examples of informal fallacies." 2001:44B8:5129:A700:5842:BA72:69BC:6C96 ( talk) 08:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it clearer with an example; however I could only think of this one. If a better one comes to you, please feel free to change it, of course. Cheers, Thouny ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure the example given in this paragraph is actually self-contradicting. There are 2 elements required for 'society to be free', liberty should be _maximized_(made as big or great _as possible_) AND people should take responsibility for their actions. Ezetreal ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, the scrapped example referred to above:
Hyacinth ( talk) 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the criteria for including or excluding examples? Hyacinth ( talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This section could probably be worded more carefully. I had some trouble trying to figure out what was event intended. I originally thought it referred to what the article calls "Self-contradictory requirements". At this point I 'believe' the intended meaning is "no part of the false definition is present in a correct definition, and no part of a correct definition is present in the false definition". (Although either half of that sentence is sufficient, I assume the "mutual" part of the label is intended to imply both halves.)
If my interpretation is correct, then the example is incorrect, since cows are, in fact, animals. Instead of "cows are flying animals with no legs", "cows are flying insects with no legs", or something, would be better. 199.127.114.114 ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Dynamic equilibrium can exist. CherubAgent1440 ( talk) 09:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Just been through the article The sections seemed short Should a template saying they need expansion John Kryten ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)