At the last party I was invited to -- back in 1982 -- I confess my feelings were a bit hurt when I overheard another one of the guests refer to me as "seriously boring". A man just should not have to hear that sort of talk at his own wedding -- and especially in a speech by his best man.
The shame was so great that for decades I have put on a false front by pretending to the world that I am not actually fascinated by tedious, detailed discussions of such boring topics as whether or not it is possible to create a calculus for determining once and for all exactly how many chickens can cross the road in a single joke.
But today...today I have decided to rise up! I have decided to liberate myself from my shame! I have decided...well, I have decided to found a radical new movement, #boringlivesmatter, by publicly discussing in this very thread the extremely fascinating question of how a dictionary might be used to bolster a straw man fallacy!
You have been warned. Yet, as you might expect, the revolution will not be televised.
The Issue at Hand
I recently came across a case in which a dictionary was used to give weight to a straw man argument. It occurred to me that I'd seen that sort of thing before. So naturally, I got all excited and decided to start a thread on the topic in order entertain everyone.
What follows is not the actual argument. Rather, it is an argument that is logically equivalent to the real argument.
So what makes the second person's argument a straw man? Well, as you know, a straw man fallacy has this form:
The "god argument" above seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of a straw man. By redefining "god", the second person has introduced what amounts to a whole new argument. They then go on to defeat the new argument while claiming to thus defeat the original argument.
But the straw man here has got a devilish twist to it. That is, it tosses in an alleged justification for the fallacy. Namely, that the straw man is justified by the fact the dictionary defines "god" differently than "god" is defined in the original argument. Fiendish, I tell you. Perfectly fiendish!
In effect, the perpetrator of the straw man (who we shall henceforth call by the nonprejudicial title of "the Perp") is arguing that the only permissible definition of "god" is the dictionary's definition.
To me, the Perp's argument seems bogus. Very, very bogus. After all, what law of humans or nature makes a dictionary's definition of a term the only permissible definition?
The Big, Fat Question.
So here's what I've been thinking about: Are there any cases -- any cases at all -- in which there are rational grounds for asserting that there is only one permissible definition of a word or term?
Can we ever argue that a straw man is justified by claiming that one particular definition of a word or term is the only correct or proper one?
Gods! But this is exciting! I can't wait until y'all wake up now and tell me what you think!
The shame was so great that for decades I have put on a false front by pretending to the world that I am not actually fascinated by tedious, detailed discussions of such boring topics as whether or not it is possible to create a calculus for determining once and for all exactly how many chickens can cross the road in a single joke.
But today...today I have decided to rise up! I have decided to liberate myself from my shame! I have decided...well, I have decided to found a radical new movement, #boringlivesmatter, by publicly discussing in this very thread the extremely fascinating question of how a dictionary might be used to bolster a straw man fallacy!
You have been warned. Yet, as you might expect, the revolution will not be televised.
The Issue at Hand
I recently came across a case in which a dictionary was used to give weight to a straw man argument. It occurred to me that I'd seen that sort of thing before. So naturally, I got all excited and decided to start a thread on the topic in order entertain everyone.
What follows is not the actual argument. Rather, it is an argument that is logically equivalent to the real argument.
FIRST PERSON: Let us begin by defining "god" as "whatever you worship". If we first define god that way, then if we worship money, money is our god."
SECOND PERSON: But the dictionary defines "god" as "a supreme being". Money is not a being, and thus money cannot be a god".
SECOND PERSON: But the dictionary defines "god" as "a supreme being". Money is not a being, and thus money cannot be a god".
So what makes the second person's argument a straw man? Well, as you know, a straw man fallacy has this form:
Someone argues X.
Someone else argues against Y while claiming they are arguing against X. When they defeat Y, they claim they have defeated X.
Someone else argues against Y while claiming they are arguing against X. When they defeat Y, they claim they have defeated X.
The "god argument" above seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of a straw man. By redefining "god", the second person has introduced what amounts to a whole new argument. They then go on to defeat the new argument while claiming to thus defeat the original argument.
But the straw man here has got a devilish twist to it. That is, it tosses in an alleged justification for the fallacy. Namely, that the straw man is justified by the fact the dictionary defines "god" differently than "god" is defined in the original argument. Fiendish, I tell you. Perfectly fiendish!
In effect, the perpetrator of the straw man (who we shall henceforth call by the nonprejudicial title of "the Perp") is arguing that the only permissible definition of "god" is the dictionary's definition.
To me, the Perp's argument seems bogus. Very, very bogus. After all, what law of humans or nature makes a dictionary's definition of a term the only permissible definition?
The Big, Fat Question.
So here's what I've been thinking about: Are there any cases -- any cases at all -- in which there are rational grounds for asserting that there is only one permissible definition of a word or term?
Can we ever argue that a straw man is justified by claiming that one particular definition of a word or term is the only correct or proper one?
Gods! But this is exciting! I can't wait until y'all wake up now and tell me what you think!