2. Language and Definitions
Definitions in Logical Reasoning
1
Introduction definitions in logical reasoning
To better understand meaning through definitions for the purpose
of logical argumentation there are certain terms we must understand. We tend to
define words, whether we know it or not, in terms of intention and extension.
In intension, we define a term according to its characteristics.
“Car” four wheeled form of transportation with a combustion engine, etc. Also
when defining a car we might use synonyms (like clunker), word origins,
operational features or genus.
When using intention a definition is made up the definiendum (the
word to be defined) and the definiens (the words doing the defining).
Definition = Definiendum + Definiens.
This is similar to the semiological terminology signifier and
signified. Where signified pertains to the “plane of content,” while signifier
is the “plane of expression, Today, following Louis Hjelmslev, the signifier is
interpreted as the material form, i.e. something which can be seen, heard,
touched, smelled or tasted; and the signified as the mental concept.
An example of an intensional definition is, the word ‘fire’ means
“the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of
combustion.” Here, “Fire” is the definiendum, and “the rapid oxidation of a
material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion.” works as the
definiens.
In extension, we define term according to the class or collection
of things to which the term refers. “Car” is a vehicle (We will get into
this term later).
In logical reasoning definitions have purposes. These purposes can
be; Lexical, Precising, Stipulative, Persuasive or Theoretical.
2
Example: Ted and Fred talk about Racism
Ted – I think what Janet said was
racist.
Fred – But black people can’t be
racist.
Ted – Yes they can! The
dictionary says that racism is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism
directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a
particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or
marginalized.” While white people generally aren’t considered marginalized the definition
said typically, and not always.
Fred – But our public discourse
often frames race and racism as individualistic and disjointed from
sociohistorical relations of power, subjugation, and oppression in the United
States. It is more accurate to draw on a conceptualization of race that
understands the United States as a racially organized society and suggest that
race is simultaneously a social construct and an everyday tangible.
Ted – I’m not disputing that but
Janet said white people smell like wet dogs. This is obviously representative
of a belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities,
or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to
one another. She compared the scent of an entire racial group to dirty dogs.
Fred – I think what Janet said was
messed up, however I’m don’t think its fair to call it racist. The dictionary
definition simply doesn’t word, because it Janet saying white people smell like
dogs is racist and a white mob lynching a black child is also racist then the
word seems to have lost meaning. Its like saying a rice crispy treat is a
dinner and so is a four course dinner. They are both dinner if you decide they
are, but giving the size of the four coursed dinner could we really say that
the rice crispy treat is a worthy dinner, or would we say, That really more of
a slack, or a treat, I’m not gonna call that dinner.
Ted – I think that’s a fair point
however, could we think of racism in a similar way to how we think of cars. Ok,
so a Volkswagen Beetle is an automobile and so is a Ford F 150. These are very
different beasts, but both are still automobiles. Maybe we can think of racism
is a similar way, while the white people smell like dogs is not the same as a
lynching, The lynching is obviously way more serious, they are both racism
acts, or events What I’m trying to get at is that there are different
consequences for both acts. Saying Janet smells like a wet dog is mean and
should never be done, but its won’t kill her, prevent her from gaining
employment, take away her housing, or hurt her in the same way that calling
someone the n-word does..
Fred – I think for the sake of
argument I can work with the word in that context, however I think we should
have a more specific word for prejudice committed against a group not
considered marginalized. A definition that does not undermine the pain cause by
such insensitive statements but one that also does not seem to make light of
violence racist acts committed towards marginalized groups.
Ted – Let’s use the word Jerkface
and define it as racism toward non marginalized groups. Or any word, it doesn’t
matter. Either way racism is a stupid, ignorant system and needs to be
destroyed.
3
Lexical Definition
Ted starts off with a lexical definition
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a
person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or
ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
A lexical definition provides the general meaning of a word or
phrase as understood by the majority of ordinary people. When there are
multiple definitions, then the first listed in the dictionary will be the most
popular or most common. However meanings change over time and a common meaning
from the past may be different today. When considering lexical definitions
remember the eight rules.
Rule 1 -a lexical definition should conform to the standards of
proper grammar
A definition, like any other form of expression, should be
grammatically correct.
Vacation is when you don’t have to go to work or school.
“Vacation” means a period during which activity is suspended from
work or school.
Rule 2 -a lexical definition should convey the essential meaning
of the word being defined
the word “human” is occasionally defined as featherless biped.
Such a definition fails to convey the essential meaning of “human” as the word
is used in ordinary English.
A more adequate definition would be “‘Human’ means the animal that
has the capacity to reason and to speak.”
Rule 3 -a lexical definition should be neither too broad nor too
narrow
If a definition is too broad, the definiens includes too much; if
it is too narrow, the definiens includes too little.
“bird” were defined as any warm-blooded animal having wings, the
definition would be too broad
bird” were defined as any warm-blooded, feathered animal that can
fly, the definition would be too narrow because it would exclude ostriches and
penguins, which cannot fly.
Rule 4 -a lexical definition should avoid circularity
A definition is circular when the definiendum is defined in terms
of itself
“Science” means the activity engaged in by scientists.
“Scientist” means anyone who engages in science.
Rule 5 -a lexical definition should not be negative when it can be
affirmative
“Concord” means harmony.
“Concord” means the absence of discord.
Rule 6 -a lexical definition should avoid figurative, obscure,
vague or ambiguous language
…
Rule 7 -a lexical definition should avoid affective terminology
Affective terminology is any kind of word usage that plays on the
emotions of the reader or listener.
“Communism” means that “brilliant” invention of Karl Marx and
other foolish political vision- aries in which the national wealth is supposed
to be held in common by the people.
Rule 8 -a lexical definition should indicate the context to which
the definiens pertains
applies to any definition in which the context of the definiens is
important to the meaning of the definiendum
“Strike” means (in baseball) a pitch at which a batter swings and
misses.
“Strike” means (in bowling) the act of knocking down all the pins
with the rst ball of a frame.
“Strike” means (in shing) a pull on a line made by a sh in taking
the bait.
Lexical definitions give us a general and sometimes overly simple
meaning understood by most “people on the street.”
4
Theoretical Definition
Fred then comes in with a theoretical definition;
Fred – But our public discourse
often frames race and racism as individualistic and disjointed from
sociohistorical relations of power, subjugation, and oppression in the United
States. It is more accurate to draw on a conceptualization of race that
understands the United States as a racially organized society and suggest that
race is simultaneously a social construct and an everyday tangible.
He attempted to provide a developed, full understanding of what
the word means. Usually, theoretical definitions are desired when the meaning
as embraced by most “people on the street” is insufficient. Philosophically or
scientifically complex words often require such definitions. Philosophers, for
instance, will often discuss the nature of “consciousness.” “What does it mean
to be ‘consciousness’?” they might ask. Appealing to a dictionary will hardly
help, nor can a philosopher simply say, “I stipulate that ‘consciousness’ means
X! There, the conversation is over.”
Theoretical definitions are an attempt at giving a true,
informative understanding of potentially complex words. Aristotle might define
‘good act’ as an act that is the mean of two vices. Immanuel Kant might have
defined a good act as simply being consistent with the Categorical Imperative.
Both of these definitions need explanation to be fully informative, but that’s
what a theoretical definition seeks to do.
Simply words like chair might not need too much analysis, your
could simply ask someone one the street, but trying asking them to define
neutrinos, dark matter, singularities, or even electrons? To understand these
terms we need a more informative definition than will likely be found in a dictionary.
5
Precising Definition
There was a point where Fred was trying to get more specific:
“Fred – I think what Janet said was messed
up, however I’m don’t think it’s fair to call it racist. The dictionary
definition simply doesn’t word, because it Janet saying white people smell like
dogs is racist and a white mob lynching a black child is also racist then the
word seems to have lost meaning. It’s like saying a rice crispy treat is a
dinner and so is a four course dinner. They are both dinner if you decide they
are, but giving the size of the four coursed dinner could we really say that
the rice crispy treat is a worthy dinner, or would we say, That really more of
a slack, or a treat, I’m not gonna call that dinner. What I’m trying to get at
is that there are different consequences for both acts. Saying Janet smells
like a wet dog is mean and should never be done, but its won’t kill her,
prevent her from gaining employment, take away her housing, or hurt her in the
same way that calling someone the n-word does.”
Often we will need a more precise definition of what a words means
in a particular circumstance. “For the purposes of X, Y means Z.” For example,
we all have some idea of what it means to be rich. Let’s say that Biden is
giving out tax breaks to the rich. All rich people are getting a tax break.
Eddy in Baden always has a new car, he makes more money than anyone else in the
neighborhood. Eddy is rich compared to me and you, but compared Elon Musk and
Jeff Bazos Eddy is very poor. Technically Eddy makes earns just enough income
to put him above the poverty line. What we need is a more precise definition of
rich. Let’s say that Biden describes ‘rich’ as holding over a billion dollars’
worth of assets.
A precising definition may sometimes overlap with a lexical
one, because a word might have multiple ordinary meanings, but each is used in
a distinct circumstance. For example we might think of racism in terms of
beliefs in racism superiority or racism as stereotyping
6
Stipulative Definition
Ted propose using Jerkface to cover the circumstance of prejudice
directed at a non-marginalized group. This is a stipulative definition. It is
offered when there is a need for a new word to name a new or selected object,
or when a word with an established meaning is given a new usage. For instance,
if I create a new form of travel where we ride a slay driven by grasshoppers, I
can call it whatever I went. I might call it the chariot of the gods. If a
zoologist discovered how to mate a roach with a giraffe (even though none of us
can think of a good reason to do so), and this abomination produces has babies,
I get to stipulate what to call them. I might just call them Rudypattootties.
Or if I decide that I want to call my front the mouth, even if the word ‘mouth’
already has an established meaning I can still do that.
Bare in mind a stipulated definition is just what you may call a
term it is not a term agreed upon by everyone. It could be one day if your word
catches the attention of others, but it doesn’t hold the same power as a
theoretical definition.
For example if I define prejudice, or racism against
non-marginalized people as jerkface this offers no explanatory power. We are no
closer to understanding what racism is.
7
Persuasive Definition
Finally we have Ted’s persuasive definition at the end.
“Either way racism is a stupid, ignorant system and needs to be
destroyed.”
When we want a definition that emotively persuades someone to a
given position we want a persuasive definition. Persuasive definitions use
emotive, affective language to try to sway people to one side or another. They
generally don’t tell us what people normally mean by the word, so they are not
lexical. They generally are not new words selected for a new or subjectively
selected object, so they are not stipulative. People offering this form of
definition are trying to avoid using logic or evidence to convince another.
For example:
* Capital Punishment: The senseless slaughter of many innocent
people for primitive barbaric motives.
* Capital Punishment: The natural right of a grieving family to
have justice.
Well, who would want to slaughter an innocent person? And who
would not want a grieving family to have justice? But neither of these
“definitions” explains what Capital Punishment is. They provide no cognitive
information; they simply stir emotions.
Next
Comments
Post a Comment