Talk:Fallacies of definition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
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.
Contents |
[edit] Good examples to complement the bad ones
The examples in this article would be more useful if each bad definition were accompanied by a good one. --P3d0 18:48, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Circularity
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)
- Is that really a circular definition, or a subset, where all A's are B's, all B's are A's? Parents are ancestors and ancestors are parents, but the idea that a parent could be "one's ancestor's parent" is preposterous in the case of a childless bachelor. Go figure. That situationalism example is better. MMetro 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
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)
[edit] Defining with a near synonym
The meanings of 'beautiful' and 'aesthetic' are nothing like synonymous! Bitbut 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
