Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy.[1] Definitions may fail to have merit, because they are overly broad,[2][3][4] overly narrow,[3][4] incomprehensible,[4] use obscure or ambiguous language,[2] contain mutually exclusive parts,[3] or (one of the most common[5]) be circular.[2][6]
- ^ Kale, Rekhaa (2015-10-25). "BLS LOGIC 1: CHAPTER 8. DEFINITION". BLS LOGIC 1. Retrieved 2020-07-21.
- ^ a b c Gibbon, Guy (2013). Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780759123427.
- ^ a b c Potter, Karl H. (1991). Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, p.87. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 9788120807792. "Under-extension", "over-extension", and "mutual exclusion".
- ^ a b c Chakraborti, Chhanda (2007). Logic: Informal, Symbolic and Inductive, p.54-5. PHI Learning. ISBN 9788120332485. "Too wide", "too narrow", "incomprehensible", and "conflicting".
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
H&Dwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Schipper, Edith Watson and Schuh, Edward (1960). A First Course in Modern Logic, p.24. Routledge. "Incongruous", "circular", "negative", and "obscure or figurative".
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search