Talk:Definist fallacy

On 2-27-2006 User:Mel Etitis removed the following from the article:

For an example, we should consider Zorn's lemma and the axiom of choice. These were proved to be logically equivalent, and this was a surprising discovery in the history of mathematics. So, we can ask the question "Does Zorn's lemma mean the same thing as the axiom of choice?". The answer seems to depend on a clear notion of synonymy. We can say, "they imply all the same things, but do they really mean the same thing? I don't know. What is meaning?". This may indicate that the open question is an ambiguous question, and thus that Moore's argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

This is a standard example in the philosophical analysis of meaning and in my opinion Mel should not have removed it (though rewriting it to make it clearer would be fine). The article without an example leaves it utterly mysterious how the argument is supposed to go. I will not revert Mel's edit because he is whiny and will complain. I assert that his use of terms is theory-laden and ought be accompanied with some general characterization of the theory. KSchutte 17:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Please desist from childish personal attacks.
2. I'm frankly astonished that you thought that the passage in question was appropriate for a Wikiepdia article:

   "For an example, we should consider Zorn's lemma and the axiom of choice. These were proved to be logically equivalent, and this was a surprising discovery in the history of mathematics. So, we can ask the question "Does Zorn's lemma mean the same thing as the axiom of choice?". The answer seems to depend on a clear notion of synonymy. We can say, "they imply all the same things, but do they really mean the same thing? I don't know. What is meaning?". This may indicate that the open question is an ambiguous question, and thus that Moore's argument commits the fallacy of equivocation."

Even leaving aside the unencyclopædic style (and especially the "but do they really mean the same thing? I don't know. What is meaning?"!), the paragraph is very unclear, and fails utterly to elucidate the notion of the definist fallacy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you respond directly to my criticism? That might be nice. Your criticism is pretty childish, too. My criticism is that you have failed to express the way in which "It is in fact unclear that the definist fallacy is fallacious".

1. You say, "the fact that there is always an open question merely reflects the fact that it makes sense to ask whether two things that may be identical in fact are." What is the nature of this "reflection"? Am I to meditate and thereby acquire the idea of what is reflected? Presumably, you don't mean this, but my point is that you have failed to say what you do mean.
2. You say, "Thus, even if the good is identical to what is pleasurable, it makes sense to ask whether it is; the answer will be "yes"," How does this follow from that? By magic? What is the way in which we know what "makes sense"? You have failed to elucidate this.
3. You say, "but the question was legitimate." This is merely the denial of Moore's claim. You, my friend, are the one begging the question. In order to show that Moore's claims are illogical, you have to do more than assert ~p for his p. You have to show ~p. You have failed to do this.
4. You say, "Moore seems to be implying that the answer might be "no", but that is to beg the question against the identification." What answer are you referring to? What was the question? I'm not even sure this sentence makes sense in this context. Sure, I knew what it meant when I read the article the first time, but that is only because I already knew what the definist fallacy was.

You're not the only one that can pick apart words. Don't assume you're the only god**m authority on philosophy around here. Have some faith in the intentions of editors. I'm sick and tired of you complaining about words when you're not perfect with them yourself. Don't expect perfection from me, because I'm not perfect. But don't expect perfection from yourself either, because you certainly aren't perfect. KSchutte 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1. "Reflect" is used in its standard English sense; I fail to say your problem with ordinary English vocabulary.
2. You seem to have missed the logic of the sentence, which is: if p is true, it still makes sense to ask whether it's true, although the answer will be "yes". Of course it will be "yes", because the truth of p was the antecedent of the conditional.
3. Again, you've missed the logic of the argument; Moore can't deny that, for example, it makes sense to ask whether Hesperus is Phosphorus, even though we know that it is.
4. I can't begin to undetsand how you could not follow the sentence in question. You seem to be deperately truying to invent unclarity where it doesn't exist.
5. You seem(again) fundamentally to have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia; it isn't a debating society, and what I've written in this article isn't my original research, to which you can add yours. I gave my source, which is where the content of the article comes from (hence the word "source". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not miss your logic, as I clearly indicated. I understand this material. My point is that wikipedia isn't just a list of facts, it has a pedagogical nature. We absolutely must say things in a way that is clear to people unfamiliar with the subject. Your very response to my criticism (and my criticism is of you, by the way, not of the article) includes the phrase "for example, it makes sense to ask whether Hesperus is Phosphorus, even though we know that it is." This is precisely the thing that I think is absent from the article, and this is precisely what I was trying to add to it (although in slightly different words). My criticism is that you have shown over and over again that you lack the wikivirtue Assume good faith. Instead of immediately reverting every edit that is made, you ought to observe authorial intent and determine what was missing from the article in the first place. Frankly, I'm not doubting that you're a smart guy, I'm doubting that you're a good teacher. KSchutte 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately my worth as a teacher is attested to by my students, and my abilities as a writer by my many hundreds of thousands of readers. The problem is, however, that you insist on believing that my inability to follow what on Earth you're talking about most of the time is my fault not yours (while your claimed inability to understand me is, mirabile dictu, mine, not yours).

I had thought of adding the Hesperus/Phosphorus example, and shall do so. I had been trying to avoid adding too much of my own ideas or examples, preferring to keep close to my source. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you decided to make the article clearer. I wish you weren't so hasty and mean when others try to do the same thing. KSchutte 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I merely removed a completely inappropriate and obscure bit of text; you immediately reacted with insult adn accusation. You might (but doubtless won't) think about where the nastiness came from. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone is still watching this page? I have noticed that the arguments against Moore note that it always makes sense to ask a question, not whether it is significant to do so... I fail to see how the example shows this? All of my reading on this is from the Wikipedia articles, so might fit the definition of the target audience. BananaFiend 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and definist fallacy committed in its own article

This entire article seems to describe a fallacy from the point of view of a single book, then attack it in straw man fashion. The definist fallacy isn't the fallacy committed by "the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other," but specifically by defining a term as one sees fit for ones own argument. Every non-wikipedia source I have found gives definitions and examples to this effect. An example would be defining a fetus as an unborn baby in order to prove abortion wrong, or defining justice to be equality to prove Socialism to be the best ideal.

Given this definition, the article commits the definist fallacy itself by defining the term in such a way as to better present its POV.

Worse, the article seems to do nothing other than attack this Moore's book, which is ridiculously POV; it doesn't even correctly characterize his arguments, as the user above me posted. If this article is to be kept, it must be completely rewritten. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

isnt it Persuasive definition what you mean above? it can be found on the disambiguation page that was created for Definist Fallacy and it seems to fit your description.

on an other note, this article (about Frankena and Moore) is hardly intelligible to me as a layperson. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC).