Argument from Misleading Definition
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Argument from Misleading Definition is an informal logical fallacy where an individual misapplies a definition of a word under discussion. Usually this is either a citation to a dictionary definition where the word is being used in a specialist sense that is not reflected by mainstream dictionaries, uses an outdated dictionary that does not reflect current usage, or alternatively appeals to the underlying history of the word, not realizing that the words etymology does not reflect its meaning. Implicit in this fallacy is the idea that any use of the word that does not reflect this specific definition is wrong, and any idea using these differing uses is incorrect and ill-thought-out.
It is a fallacy (and usually an example of the equivocation fallacy) because words can have multiple meanings, sometimes quite at odds with each other, and because these meanings can change. Dictionaries, in particular, are often very conservative and do not reflect recent developments, whether cultural or scientific.
[edit] Examples
There are two closely related forms of the argument from misleading definition.
Example 1:
- Protagonist: ... so my nephew started having hysterics, right there on the airport floor.
- Antagonist: That's not possible!
- Protagonist: What?
- Antagonist: That your nephew was having hysterics. The word comes from the Greek word for "uterus", and your nephew doesn't have a uterus.
Example 2:
- Antagonist: The United States isn't a democracy! The word "democracy" means "A state where the people govern," and I'm part of the people, but I'm certainly not part of the government!
In either case, the linguistic facts presented are true, but the argument itself is incorrect, because the words have additional meanings.
[edit] Discussion
This fallacy is often seen as a prelude to an ad hominem argument, particularly with regard to the word "skeptical." (British spelling : "sceptical"). The philosophical tradition of "skepticism" includes radical or philosophical skeptics who doubt everything and claim that actual knowledge is impossible. A hardline philosophical "skeptic" as defined here would doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. The standard philosophy of science accepts a modern and moderated version of philosophical skepticism, in that all (scientific) truths are somewhat provisional and can be replaced, revised, or rejected in the light of new evidence. Scientists, however, are willing to believe that knowledge in practice can be obtained through experimentation and rational thought. Proponents of the paranormal, however, often find themselves unable or unwilling to provide evidence of acceptable quality and type.
Skepticism can also be applied more specifically ("skepticism regarding a particular claim or proposition" as a term for doubt and/or disbelief); Randi himself, is notoriously "skeptic" regarding many claims of the paranormal because he has investigated them, and on the basis of the evidence he has seen over the years, tends to reject them as incredible, implausible, and almost certainly untrue.
Many paranormalists see Randi's rejection of many allegedly paranormal phenomena as a violation of "skepticism" (under the first definition), which it is, while not recognizing its legitimacy under scientific, evidence-based skepticism. They claim that Randi (and by extensions, many self-identified "skeptics") are not maintaining the necessary attitude of open-minded doubt that philosophical skepticism requires, and are therefore being closed-minded and obstructionist. This argument thus misses approximately two thousand years of philosophical and scientific developments -- as well as most of the point of an evidence-based approach to the paranormal.
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
In cases where there is genuine confusion about the meaning of a word, either in general, or in relation to a specific discussion, it is appropriate to consult a dictionary or other reference source. It is not appropriate to treat such a source as being infallible or omniscient.
