|
|
Exaggerating the importance of outliers, or overinclusivityA problem of definition that sometimes arises is when people try to be overinclusive, and try and include the outliers in the definition in order to change the definition. An example could be: "Humans have 5 fingers on each hand, and 5 toes on each foot" "Well some people have polydactyly, and some have birth defects, so to be exact, you have to say that humans can have anywhere between 8 and 12 fingers in total"
This is not about anecdotal evidence, but the point here is that the outliers are so rare, that's it's not worth including them in the definition, or the definition would become so broad as to basically be meaningless. This is also different from the appeal to definition, because here an active attempt is made to disregard the dictionary in favor of completely changing the definition to benefit the arguer. What fallacy would this be? Or is it a new one? |
|||
| asked on Tuesday, Nov 03, 2020 06:49:26 PM by Mr. Brinstar | ||||
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
This isn't an argument; it is just being pedantic . Take your example statement: "Humans have 5 fingers on each hand, and 5 toes on each foot" It is well understood that if a human loses a finger in an accident, they are still human. There is an implied "generally" in there that we all understand. It is so well understood, that adding the "generally" is unnecessary. So if someone counters with "not exactly,..." they are just stating the obvious, or being pedantic. We all want to slap people like this. I am not even sure how to make this a credible argument (an argument that someone might actually make) to look for a fallacy. |
| answered on Wednesday, Nov 04, 2020 07:04:41 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
EXCLUDED MIDDLE: To wit, "SOME humans have MORE than 5... SOME LESS than 5..." |
| answered on Wednesday, Nov 04, 2020 03:01:37 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
"Humans have 5 fingers on each hand, and 5 toes on each foot" Nowhere does this say 'can only have five fingers.....' etc.... |
| answered on Wednesday, Nov 04, 2020 09:11:51 AM by skips777 | |
skips777 Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
This is a contextual issue. In a general, informal, context, then yes, humans have five fingers. In a deeper discussion, the definition must be more specific. This illustrates why the definitions are important to a discussion and all participants must agree on the meaning of the definition in use for the particular discussion. |
| answered on Wednesday, Nov 04, 2020 09:15:24 AM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
