![]() ![]() (Of course, this was not seriously intended as a definition of "oats" but as an ironic comment on the social, cultural, and financial differences between England and Scotland.) For example, ‘golden eyes’ in a biography may lead the reader to think that the person was fictional.Īn example of obscurity is Samuel Johnson's definition for oats: "A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." The thing defined (oats) should be pointed out rather than remain obscure. Figurative language can also be misinterpreted. ![]() ![]() Definitions should be defined in the most prosaic form of language to be understood, as failure to elucidate provides fallacious definitions. If a cow were defined as an animal with horns, this would be overly broad (including goats, for example), while if a cow were defined as a black-and-white quadruped, this would be both overly narrow (excluding: all-black, all-white, all-brown and white-brown cows, for example) and overly broad (including Dalmatians, for example).ĭefinitions can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language. Likewise, defining a "rectangle" as "a shape with four perpendicular sides of equal length" is inappropriate because it is too narrow, as it describes only squares while excluding all other kinds of rectangles, thus being a plainly incorrect definition. For example, "a shape with four sides of equal length" is not a sufficient definition for "square", because squares are not the only shapes that can have four sides of equal length rhombi do as well. Incongruity: overly broad or narrow Ī definition intended to describe a given set of individuals fails if its description of matching individuals is incongruous: too broad (excessively loose with parameters) or too narrow (excessively strict with parameters). "It is a fallacy because by using a synonym in the definiens the reader is told nothing significantly new." Ī straightforward example would be to define "Jew" as "a person believing in Judaism", and "Judaism" as "the religion of the Jewish people", which would make "Judaism" "the religion of the people believing in Judaism." If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, this is known as a circular definition, akin to circular reasoning: neither offers enlightenment about what one wanted to know. Circular definition of inflammable liquid ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |