Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part V (Trading on Words)

-->

Trading on Words

In any valid argument at least one term or its negative must be repeated.

equivocation - the illegitimate switching of meanings in mid-argument.

Sometimes a conclusion which employs a term in one sense will appear to be based on premise(s) which turn out to use the term in another sense.

Relative equivocation - changing standards of comparison mid-argument.

Propagandists employ a series of equivocation designed to continue approval, or mute disapproval, by exploiting the lag created by what might be called semantic inertia, our tendency to believe that terms continue to apply to just what they did formerly in order to hide something undesirable, the propagandist retains a familiar term while worsening what the term covers, eg. buying a car called a Charade and then buying the Charade XT model three years later and finding that it has less features than the original.

Equivocation by name change - we sometimes proceed as if along with linguistic change goes actual change eg. changing the name on a river from Rampager to Tranquil.  This weakness gets exploited by those wishing to cover up unpopular actions eg. change “search and destroy” to “reconnaissance for pacification” or to give the aura of progress to inaction.

Definition

Often writers on definition have proceeded as if defining were a matter of meeting formal requirements.  The result has been unnecessary shackles or senseless artificiality.

There is little point in trying to define words whose meaning is already familiar.

To define is basically to explain what a term means.

- good explaining puts the unclear in terms of the clear, or known.

- a good definition rephrases a term whose meaning is unclear or unknown.

- whoever knows what a term means can variously employ it.

Audience is an integral part of any explanation.  Good definitions fit their audience.

Sorts of definition - stipulative, operational, and persuasive.

Stipulative definitions: if what a term does mean is a matter of general usage, then good definitions describe that usage (such definitions are called lexical).

What a person means by a term, need not be governed by what a term does mean - as long as the person explains in a generally understood way what he or she means - this is stipulative definition.

As long as it remains clear that a term has been defined stipulatively, the use of stipulative definition can be valuable.

Stipulative meanings can fuse with conventional meanings, resulting in equivocation.

Operational definition - specify meaning in terms of procedures one goes through in order to arrive at a case.

Operational definitions have several good effects (1) they offer a precise way to stipulate exactly what is meant, (2) they lead the audience into the activities of which the term is a part, (3) they sometimes counter the urge to hypostatize ie. to feel as if there ought to be a something or a doing which an abstract term denotes.

Definitions carry an aura of authority.  Often writers, speakers parasitize this aura in order to pass opinion off as fact.  They give a persuasive definition as a lexical definition.

A persuasive definition sets down not what the term does mean but what its author would like it to mean.

Misconceptions about definitions (1) good definitions must give the common and distinctive property, (2) defining by example is no good, (3) definition must not be circular, (4) definition must precede understanding, (5) definition is a form of understanding.

Concatenation = a chain forming process by which the meanings of the habitual accompaniments of what is called by a term come to attach to the term’s meaning eg. the word “green” originally referred to the colour of grass, but has since been concatenated to mean other things ie. unripe, immature.

Insistence on there being a unique, exhaustive, defining property, an essence, could be called the essentialist fallacy.

To avoid circular definitions is good policy, as long as it is subordinate to the principle that, what explains should be more accessible than what gets explained.

Understanding and being able to define, however are different.

“words are neither ambiguous nor vague; words are used ambiguously or vaguely.  It’s not the word but the user”

Insistence that definition precede understanding usually stems from the feeling that vagueness and ambiguity are in the term itself and must be eliminated by precise defining.

Knowledge precedes definition, not vice versa.  Definition can extend only to the limits of knowledge, no further.

People sometimes proceed as if to construct a definition is to discover the hitherto unknown.