Appeal to Definition in a Controversial Debate
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I'm back at it again!
The Appeal to Definition is a common fallacy. However, I intend to argue that it is a conditional fallacy (like Special Pleading), and can be used in certain discussions without error. For sociopolitical issues, it may be more valid, and for scientific issues, it may not be.
Consider this exchange:
Oliver: Same-sex marriage is not marriage. Gay people may have civil unions, nothing more.
Wyatt: Why do you believe that?
Oliver: The 1988 Edition Hayford Dictionary of Sorts defines marriage as a formal, legal union between two partners of different sexes, which affords them civil and financial protections.
Marriage is a social construct. Since social constructs are products of the culture and society in which they are formed, there is a greater degree of subjectivity in the definition, and thus, Oliver's argument is not sufficient to rule out same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the defining feature of all marriages - the commonality - is not necessarily the sex difference, but the formal, legal status of the matrimonial union. Thus, the concept of same-sex marriage - which maintains this matrimonial union, but extends it to same-sex partners - doesn't violate the definition at its essence. Lastly, Oliver's definition is outdated - see newer editions of the dictionary for more modern takes!
Note: this 'law of commonality' for extending class membership to non-members must be observed, to avoid making the definition incongruous. For instance, even if two same-sex people are 'together', that doesn't mean they are necessarily 'married' - they'd have to go through that same formal process in order for them to have at least the essence of marriage in common with other members. This prevents someone from using the 'social construct' argument to redefine things into meaninglessness.
Oliver's argument is fallacious. But here, things are different:
Kathryn: I reject biological evolution. God is the sole creator of all life on Earth.
Barbara: How can you be so confident?
Kathryn: If evolution were true, then human beings descended from monkeys. I am a human being. Therefore, I descended from monkeys. Now, I know of no family members that look, speak, act or are monkeys, therefore I can't have descended from them, and the theory of evolution is false.
Barbara: That's...the wrong definition. Evolution as described by Darwin, posits that humans and monkeys share an ancestor - but that we diverged from them many, many years ago. It has nothing to do with anyone in your family history being a monkey.
Kathryn wrongly defines something objective, or observable in the natural world (in this case, evolution). Thus, appealing to the dictionary here is ok.
Do you agree with my 'natural science-no'/'social science-yes' type argument? I'm open to being proven wrong, because I can think of a few problems with my reasoning.
Comments on Question
Answers
2
For sociopolitical issues, it may be more valid, and for scientific issues, it may not be.
I think this is a decent heuristic, but like other heuristics, should not be used if this is an exercise in reasoning / critical thinking. While there are objective facts, we use subjective words to describe them. For example, is Pluto a planet? Naturalistically, nothing changed but our definition of planet has (or more details were discovered about Pluto). As long as words describe natural, objective phenomena we will have this issue.
Your example of evolution appears to be more of a misunderstanding of evolution than using the wrong definition.
What this boils down to is that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive. Language evolves and dictionaries are updated to reflect the evolution of words and what they are used to mean. That last part is fundamental, words are just symbols to express ideas.
The exception is when words are used within a discipline and they have strict meanings which must be adhered to.
I think the above is reflected in what you already said, if not specifically in those terms.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Marriage.....a legal binding contract between adults that gives the state the power to determine what said adults relationship will be based upon dissolution of the marriage, unless "premarital contracts", eg. Prenups, were drawn up and was agreed on prior to the union