DEFINITION 2
Arguments justifying a DEFINITION
1. Methods for constructing a sound definition
Definitions based on common usage, on the true meaning of the word, on the scientific meaning of the word can be pitted against each other.
There are rules for establishing a correct definition, and therefore, critical rules for evaluating, definitions, see Arguments establishing vs. exploiting a relationship.
These rules depend on the social or scientific fields to which the defined entities belong, and adapt to the different types of definitions. The more general ones are.
(i) Does the definition correctly disambiguate the term according to its meanings (homonymy) and acceptances (polysemy)? see Ambiguity.
(ii) Does the definition avoid circularity? If not, it is a vicious circle. Since words are defined by words, the whole dictionary is actually circular. As explanations or arguments in general, definitions should try to avoid circularity as much as possible; that is, the definition (definiens) cannot use the word it is supposed to define (definiendum), nor a (near) synonym of the word. Nevertheless, a definition by synonyms or by the simple negation of an antonym is helpful if one of these defining words is better known than the definiendum.
(iii) Does the definition cover all uses of the word? Does the meaning of a passage remain the same if the definiens is replaced by the definiendum? If not, the definition should be revised.
(iv) Does the definition make it possible to distinguish those entities that are called by that name from those that are not? A definition can be criticized for being too broad (it applies to heterogeneous objects or beings) or for being too narrow (it excludes objects or beings that it would be desirable to include). see Definition and Argument, § 2, for the role of ostension and exemplification.
(v) Does it help? That is, does it provide enough information to clarify the meaning of the word, and, if necessary, does it give some functional clues, or point to the scientific or technical uses of the word?
(vi) Is the definition concise, clear, and simple? Does it use unknown, obscure or ambiguous words?
(vii) Is the definition objective? Does it exclude the speaker’s value judgments and ideological preferences about the entities or qualities being defined? see Orientation; Persuasive definitions.
Methods and rules such as those mentioned above serve as a guide for making definitions and, consequently, for criticizing them.
— The following set of available arguments in their positive form argue that the definition is sound, and in their negative form they argue that the definition is unsound.
(i) it correctly disambiguates the definiens
(ii) It avoids circularity
(iii) It covers all the uses of the word
(iv) It is neither too broad nor too narrow
(v) It is helpful
(vi) It is concise, clear, and simple
(vii) It is objective.
— These arguments are mobilized in debates about definitions (Schiappa 1993; 2000), that is, when there is a stasis of definition (see infra), see True meaning of a word
— They are fundamental to the criticism of argumentations that use a definition, showing for example that the underlying definitions are poorly constructed and do not follow this or that rule.
2. Stasis of definition
A definitional stasis occurs when it appears that discourse and counter-discourse appear to be based on incompatible definitions of the same object:
S1: — The right to freedom of speech and demonstration is fundamental to democracy.
S2: — What is fundamental in a democracy, is the right to have an iPhone and something to eat.
A definitional question arises: which features are essential (central) features and which ones are incidental (peripheral) to characterize a democratic state?
Incompatible categorizations lead in a question of definition:
S1: — Accidental death of a Syldavian diplomat
S2: — Assassination of a Syldavian diplomat
Classified information has been leaked:
S1: — A new manifestation of the malfunctioning of the Syldavian services
S2: — There are traitors within our services.
The investigator, in the role of the third party, transforms the two conflicting discourses into an argumentative question, and initiates an investigation to clarify what happened, based on legal definitions:
What is murder? What is an accident?
What are the crucial differences between negligence and treason?
The stasis of definition can develop as follows:
S11: — Syldavia is now a real democracy now!
S21: — How dare you talk about democracy in a country that does not recognize the rights of minorities?
S12: — According to the dictionary, democracy is …; nothing in this definition mentions the rights of minorities; so, Syldavia is certainly a true democracy
S22: — This definition is bad, and ideologically biased.
— The confrontation between the positions S11 and S21 raises a question of categorization.
— S12 rejects S21‘s objection by referring to the dictionary; he or she could just as well have referred to the accepted conventions, international law, consensus, etc.
— S22 ratifies the definitional deadlock.
According to Humpty Dumpty, the best way to resolve of a definitional stasis is to appeal to power:
[Humpty Dumpty] […] — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents—”
“Certainly,” said Alice.
“And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’”, Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course, you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. […]
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872 [1]
[1] Quoted after Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass. Chapter 6, Humpty-Dumpty. 2016. No pag. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm#link2HCH0006. (11-08-2017)