|
|
Appeal to definitionIs there a case when using a definition of a word as an argument is not a fallacy?
|
| asked on Thursday, Feb 16, 2017 10:44:40 AM by Warpdrive1 | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
|
So the fallacy here is using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. So for example, this would NOT be a fallacy:
Person 1: I may be stupid, but I am no moron. Person 2: Actually, the definition of "moron" is "a stupid person". This is where the fallacy comes in: Person 1: When I accused you of acting like a moron, I meant that you acted foolishly, I didn't mean that you were stupid. Person 2: The definition of "moron" is "a stupid person", so you did mean that I was stupid. |
| answered on Thursday, Feb 16, 2017 10:55:43 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |