Term chopping - Definist Fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Here's an argument strategy I've seen used often online. I think it would fit into the definist fallacy , but I wanted to open this up for discussion.
What a person will do is, take a mult-word term that's relevant to the argument and that has a commonly accepted meaning. Typically they'll break it apart into its constituent words, then reassemble them to change the meaning of the term. Sometimes this involves using definitions of the word that are more literal than the original term does. For instance, a few I've seen:
"Vegans say they only eat plant-based foods. Well, a cow eats grass to grow, so beef is plant-based."
"The US doesn't have a problem with gun culture. Guns are inanimate objects, they don't have culture."
"Hate crime is a meaningless term. Why would you commit a crime against someone if you didn't hate them?"
Comments on Question
Answers
3This does sound like a definist fallacy, which involves tweaky-wheeking the definition of a term to better fit one's argument, just like how my cousin Jimmy tweaked a Rubik's cube by peeling off and rearranging the stickers to claim he had solved it.
Let's dissect some of these scrumptious fallacies, like a Christmas turkey:
1) The vegan argument: by this peculiar logic, circle of life style, we're all essentially solar-powered, photosynthesizing plants, aren't we? After all, cows eat grass, which grows due to sunlight. The distance between dictionary and dinner table seems to be a marathon for this one!
2) The gun culture argument: by the same token, we could say libraries don't harbor a culture of reading because books, being inanimate objects, can't literally read. Yet, how curious that people frequent them for that very purpose. Our friendly neighborhood book club would sigh in resounding unison at this rationale.
3) The 'hashtag not all crimes are hate crimes' argument: Ah yes, because we all remember that time when Bob from across the street egged your house out of sheer delight and affection for you. I bet those were love-eggs for sure.
So yes, my dear Watson, this is a fine example of good ol' definist fallacy at work, combined with perhaps, a splash of Strawman and a dash of False Equivalence. A delicious recipe for illogical discourse. Bon Appétit!
I think it fits better under ambiguity fallacy .
I also think that the definition in the ambiguity fallacy in the above link is itself very ambiguous so I copy the Logical Form which is more clear:
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Example
"It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when."
The example given could be also said to be strawman, BUT it was classified as Ambiguity Fallacy, therefore I think the asked examples also should be classified as Ambiguity.
The "ambiguous understanding" specified in the definition perfectly applies to the
- "plant-based foods"
- "gun culture" and
- "hate crime"
Ultimately what is going on here is the meaning of the argument (that is clear) is being ignored and, with some word play, a new argument is being created that is easily defeated. The AI was right that this falls under strawman fallacy . One can argue definist fallacy , which is similar, but strawman is more universally understood and less likely that it would be argued against (i.e., with the definist fallacy, the argument can be sidetracked to definitions).
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Thanks for bringing up this fallacy that I was unfamiliar with. I've written a substack on logical fallacies in the use of the terms conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist and originally I had two instances of strawman where I see for one instance the Definist fallacy is a better fit.