| Defining Terms Too Broadly |
|
Logical Fallacy of Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining terms too broadly is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of too broad definition of terms occurs when the definition of a term is too broad so that it includes people, items, things, or concepts that should not be included. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Too Broad Definition or Terms
The term, evolution, as change from generation to generation, makes it cover both the loss of information, which has been observed, and the story that says that kinds of living things can morph into other kinds of living things, which has never been observed. That definition is too broad and actually begs the question, that is, it is circular reasoning.
Rocky began with terms that are defined too broadly and Sandy gave a true answer. Had Rocky used the term, kind, to limit the question to something more relevant to the discussion, the point would not have been lost. As it is, the subject got changed to speciation, which has nothing to do with particles-to-people evolution, the story that information is added to cells until one kind/baramin turns into another kind/baramin. Fallacy Abuse
Rocky has defined the word adequately for the question to be answered, but the answer will be that there are no such conclusive observations, so Sandy is dodging using fallacy abuse. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
